Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

What Happened To The 99th Season?


loudog

Recommended Posts

Ok, before you reply to this thread, make sure you read the entire article/text/blabber. :-)

What brought me to this confusion is that on page 62 of the latest CANADIENS magazine, volume 22.7, the writer is referring to that the Montreal Canadiens have 98 years of existence.

But on page 47 of the same magazine, it's refering to the upcoming 2008-2009 season as the 100th. So I made the mistake of confusing season and year. I told myself: 'What happened to the 99th?'

Then I realized my mistake and realized the in February 2008, the Canadiens were 98 years and 2 months old, therefore it was right to say they were existing for 98 years. They will be 99 years old on December 4th 2008.

Then I started to search online about the Canadiens 100th and realized there was a confusion between the 100th season and the 100th anniversary. Many news media/journalists are refering to the 2008-2009 season as the 100th, many are simply referring to 2009 as the centennial year, the 100th year.

But then I thought: 'It cannot be the 100th season, 2004-2005 never occured, it was cancelled.'

Then I checked Hockeydb and saw that 2004-2005 was missing. So I counted each season and it accumulated to 90. If you add the 8 pre-NHL season, it's a total of 98, not 99. Therefore the 2008-2009 season will be Montreal's 99th, not 100th.

Same thing on Wikipedia, there's no 2004-2005 season.

And many texts everywhere are confirming that the 2008-2009 season is the 91st season of the NHL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%93...anadiens_season

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_NHL_season

Therefore it's easy to realize that the 2008-2009 season will be the Montreal Canadiens' 99th season, not their 100th.

So when I read articles like the ones below, where they are refering to 2008-2009 as the 100th season:

http://canadiens.nhl.com/team/app/?service...rticleid=345366

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2008/07/17/...diens_schedule/

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/....html?id=664093

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080717...28/CPSPORTS0101

http://www.rds.ca/canadien/chroniques/255799.html

I'm baffled and ask myself: 'Where is the 99th season?' :-)

Btw, I'm not saying that 2009 is not the 100th year, I'm only stating that 2008-2009 is NOT the 100th season, it's the 99th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think its seasons i think its years of existence

they were founded in 1909 so this year is 100 years...

Re-read my article.

I'm not disputing the Monteral Canadiens organisation that it's not the 100th YEAR.

I'm reporting that JOURNALISTS and MEDIA are making the MISTAKE of calling the 2008-2009 season as the 100th.

Good thing I read your disclaimer at the beginning because I was about to say "Philadelphia"

;)

Huh? :) I missed something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it might be splitting hairs a bit to dispute "seasons" as opposed to years in existence.

The team is celebrating it's centennial, 100 years of being The Canadiens. I guess technically it hasn't been 100 seasons.

Also, in 1919 there was no Cup awarded due to a Flu outbreak. No champion, no season?

In any case, if i was in a coma for a year I'll still get a year older, even if I missed a "season" of my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it might be splitting hairs a bit to dispute "seasons" as opposed to years in existence.

The team is celebrating it's centennial, 100 years of being The Canadiens. I guess technically it hasn't been 100 seasons.

Also, in 1919 there was no Cup awarded due to a Flu outbreak. No champion, no season?

In any case, if i was in a coma for a year I'll still get a year older, even if I missed a "season" of my life.

The point is not the years. Nobody is disputing what the team is doing.We will celebrate the 100th anniversary during next season, not during this one. During this one, as of December 4 2008, we will celebrate the beginning of 100th year, and that's fine and dandy.

Half seasons, interrupted seasons is still a season. But we didn't win 24 cups out of a possible 98, it's out of 97; it makes our average better. :)

All I'm saying is that journalists and the media should identify the 2008-2009 season as the 100th. It will be next season. It's a big historical mistake that many media, magazines, articles, web sites are making, even the Canadiens are making this mistake in their printed and online publications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that journalists and the media should identify the 2008-2009 season as the 100th. It will be next season. It's a big historical mistake that many media, magazines, articles, web sites are making, even the Canadiens are making this mistake in their printed and online publications.

I may not be following you here.

The 2008-09 season is being called the 100th season. The upcoming season will be the 100th year.

I haven't seen any media reporting any different...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the 1919 and 2004 seasons were 'glitched'...doesn't mean the team stopped 'existing'. They were still the Montreal Canadiens both years...just because there was one season interrupted and the other locked out they would have been there to play if possible, thus 1909-2009, 100 years and 100 season's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may not be following you here.

The 2008-09 season is being called the 100th season. The upcoming season will be the 100th year.

I haven't seen any media reporting any different...

That's the whole point. It's a mistake that everyone is doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-09_NHL_season

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%93...anadiens_season

A season cannot be a year, a year cannot be a season.

2009 is the centennial year.

2008-2009 is the 91st NHL season, Montreal's 99th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the 1919 and 2004 seasons were 'glitched'...doesn't mean the team stopped 'existing'. They were still the Montreal Canadiens both years...just because there was one season interrupted and the other locked out they would have been there to play if possible, thus 1909-2009, 100 years and 100 season's.

I understand that the team existed. But the team didn't play. Existence and playing are two different things.

The 1919 season existed, but was interrupted.

The 2004-2005 didn't.

It's pure logic. In a database, 2004-2005 doesn't exist. It cannot be counted, it cannot be seen.

What is a season? A schedule of games. There were no games, therefore there were no season.

If it would have started for a week, it would have counted. But it didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first year the team played was 1909-1910 (so yes technically that would be next year) but let's put it this way...

If your baby was born in 2008 are you gonna celebrate his birth 1 year later?

So basically they start the celebration the year that the team was founded (born)

And at the same time since theres no all star game next year (because of the olympics) were getting all the celebration together right away this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats not what the poster is saying. Very clearly is he making the point that this is the 99th PLAYING season of the Habs, and that the Media is infact wrongfully calling this the 100th season. If the media is calling this the 100 year of the habs, then there is no wrong doing. It is still the 100th YEAR of existance, but the bottom line is the Habs have not played 100 SEASONS. For example, if you were to take a Player like Sundin (arguments sake) he has PLAYED 17 seasons in the NHL, but he's been in the league for 18 years...because of the write off year of the lockout, you lose a season. Even tsn.ca shows this on his player page, it says 17 season, but if you count the years since his first its been 18 years.

But even still, i have not seen it in the media any journalist calling this the 100th SEASON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your support Joker_Hab.

It seems to be a very difficult point to make. Habfans.com, Tricolore.ca, Chfans.com, BleacherReport.com, althought the latest seems to have understood it more.

I tried to write it differently on every site, cuz the problem is real. In the latest Canadiens magazine, they are making that mistake. Click on the links above, they are all making that mistake. RDS, La Presse, Sportsnet, Canadiens.com.

I even contacted Cité-Amérique, the producing company for the Histoire de Coeur movie, about the Canadiens' 100th anniversary, to make sure they don't make a fool of themselves and call the 2008-2009 season as the 100th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be right, but does it really matter?

At least, a constructive question.

It matters as mistakes are being printed, and might be permanently recorded in documentaries, films also.

People complained that we didn't have an outdoor game this season, when we might have one next season, during our real 100th season.

It matters a little as people are wrongfully using this season for marketing purposes. Creating an early hype.

And it matters simply because it's a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least, a constructive question.

It matters as mistakes are being printed, and might be permanently recorded in documentaries, films also.

People complained that we didn't have an outdoor game this season, when we might have one next season, during our real 100th season.

It matters a little as people are wrongfully using this season for marketing purposes. Creating an early hype.

And it matters simply because it's a mistake.

The only mistake is the word "season" instead of "year". It's not like they are promoting the wrong season, they just screwed up the wording in some places. This next season is considered the important one, next season isn't. It's just a wording mistake, not something bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only mistake is the word "season" instead of "year". It's not like they are promoting the wrong season, they just screwed up the wording in some places. This next season is considered the important one, next season isn't. It's just a wording mistake, not something bigger.

Why is this season the important one?

It's the 99th.

The 100th birthday will occur next season.

What's different about this season, other than the extremely good team that we have?

Oh, the All-star game?

Woopie doo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you want to split hairs, then the 2004-05 season DID exist... there was a schedule, there were events like the All-Star Game planned... the only difference is they weren't played, but that doesn't mean the season didn't exist... the Habs still existed during the 2004-05 season, they just didn't play any games...

and the celebration is for the Centennial year, not the 100th season... that's why the Habs are getting the All-Star game and Entry Draft this coming season, so they take place in 2009, not the following season when they would occur in 2010...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been doing some reading and there may be an argument that goes both ways. Forgive the long post, but it should clear some things up. Or muddy the discussion further...

Here are some excerpts from Brian McFarlane's book "Hockey's Glory Days"

"In researching the Montreal Canadiens famous name, I went back through the records to 1908 and a meeting held, not in Montreal, but in Renfrew, Ontario. It seems that a Renfrew club wanted a crack at the Stanely Cup, which was then a challenge cup. In 1909 Renfrew iced a team in the Federal Hockey League against clubs from Cornwall, Smiths Falls and Ottawa. Goalie Bert Lindsay (the father of Ted Lindsay) helped Renfrew win the Federal League Championship.

A year later, there was talk that the Federal League's competitor, the Eastern Canada Hockey Assocation, was winding down and a new league was to take it's place. Organizers tabbed it "the greatest league ever formed," and Renfrew wanted in.

Renfrew's bold hockey ambitions led executive Ambrose O'Brien, 24, to Montreal's Windsor Hotel. O'Brien won the support of the Wanderers and Shamrocks, but the Ottawa executives scoffed at his application and persuaded their colleagues to reject his bid.

In the lobby he met Jimmy Gardner, manager of the Wanderers. His team had just been denied a franchise in the new league. The other owners had decided the Wanderers' home rink was too small. "Ambrose, let's show these arrogant pups a thing or two," he said. I've got the Wanderers, you've got a good team in Rebfrew and I know you own a couple of teams in Haileybury and Cobalt. Let's start a new league of our own. But we'll need a second team here in Montreal. Why not organize a team of french speaking players, like Le National? We'll call it Les Canadiens." And with those words, he laid the foundation for the world's winningest hockey team.

The name Les Canadiens appears to have first surfaced during the conversation between Gardner and O'Brien in the lobby of the Windsor Hotel on November 25 1909.

A week later, on December 2, the new league was formed in Montreal. It was called the National Hockey Association. The Canadiens' season opened on January 5, 1910."

So the team came into existence in December of 1909. But the first game was not played until January of 1910.

Well, Daniel, it would seem you have a valid point here. I'm not sure who did the math, but it would seem that the 2009-2010 season is much closer to 100 years than this season. How can the team celebrate 100 years in 2009 when the first game was played in 1910?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure who did the math, but it would seem that the 2009-2010 season is much closer to 100 years than this season. How can the team celebrate 100 years in 2009 when the first game was played in 1910?

They had to pick one year to be special, and they picked 100 years of existence. Either one could have worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had to pick one year to be special, and they picked 100 years of existence. Either one could have worked.

You're right. Either one does work. By the end of the season the team will be halfway through it's 100th year of existence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not boycotting the celebration or anything. I guess it means we can have a couple of extra Molson's in the 2009-2010 season to continue the party. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...