HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   TV Deal and Competitiveness (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=104504)

Spezza 09-18-2004 06:45 PM

TV Deal and Competitiveness
 
I've been wondering if anyone has any thoughts on what effects a "competitive" league would have on a US TV deal. I'm wondering if Bettman and Co have concluded that a sweeter TV deal can be worked out if the NHL is more "competitive".

I guess the logic from Bettman is that more fans will feel involved if they have a chance at the cup every year. Playing devils advocate, I would wonder if it would since an ultra competitive league means that the big market teams should struggle and perhaps they wouldn't be as interested?

Thoughts appreciated.

hockeytown9321 09-18-2004 07:07 PM

They need stong teams to draw casual fans. People in Calgary are going to watch hockey no matter what. But people in Atlanta are going to be alot more likely to watch a great Detroit team vs. an average anybody else. Same thing applies to ticket sales. There's always 3-4,000 Red Wing fans in Anaheim or Phoenix. Thy're not there if Detroit and eveverbody else in the league is .500.

This another in the long line ofreaons a cap would be bad for hockey- it creates mediocrity.

Tom_Benjamin 09-18-2004 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spezza
I guess the logic from Bettman is that more fans will feel involved if they have a chance at the cup every year. Playing devils advocate, I would wonder if it would since an ultra competitive league means that the big market teams should struggle and perhaps they wouldn't be as interested?

They would be much more interested, but not for the reasons you suggest.

If there is a competitive balance issue with the old CBA it is that we are just as likely to get a dynasty in Vancouver as in New York. Once built, really good teams stay built until the core fades. That's bad. Look at the teams you think are in the rise? Which ones are in major American media markets? Does that augur well for future ratings?

No dynasties are better. If results were completely random every year, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Detroit would be taking a regular turn at the run to the Finals.

One thing that should come from the latest US deal is less revenue sharing. The Canadian teams should stop subsidising the American ones on the TV deal. If the Canadian package was split up among the Canadian teams, each would get $10 million US from the deal. Let the Americans divide up the ESPN/NBC money.

Why should Edmonton ship TV money to the Hawks and Rangers?

Tom

Sotnos 09-18-2004 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Once built, really good teams stay built until the core fades. That's bad. Look at the teams you think are in the rise? Which ones are in major American media markets? Does that augur well for future ratings?

Who would've thought at the time they moved that Colorado would become one of the teams in the biggest demand on national TV? If you told someone that ten years ago, they probably would have laughed at you. You can't predict these things.

garry1221 09-18-2004 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
They need stong teams to draw casual fans. People in Calgary are going to watch hockey no matter what. But people in Atlanta are going to be alot more likely to watch a great Detroit team vs. an average anybody else. Same thing applies to ticket sales. There's always 3-4,000 Red Wing fans in Anaheim or Phoenix. Thy're not there if Detroit and eveverbody else in the league is .500.

This another in the long line ofreaons a cap would be bad for hockey- it creates mediocrity.

if there's only a small handful of 'strong teams' then it does nothing for most casual fans, if you've got detroit fans in atlanta and the only way they'll come to the rink is if detroit is playing, then it doesn't matter how atlanta draws any other time, there would still be one less person for 99 % of home games,

this is not a reason that a cap would be bad for hockey, no one knows if it would create mediocrity, example, on paper the rangers should have won 3 or 4 cups in the last 5 - 6 years, but paper means nothing on ice, if we had a league full of teams like the rangers then there would be the mediocrity that you speak of, but as of now, there's nothing to prove that a cap would create mediocrity throughout the league, i'd actually think it would create a stronger league, if there were players who couldn't sign w/ any of the big market teams because of cap reasons, yet are talented enough to still make a difference on a team, then they'd either a) have to sign w/ a 'smaller market team' or b) play in europe for less $$ then they could get here

if the above situation did happen you'd see more teams starting to gain popularity as well as producing more points, making a more competitive league as a whole

Paxon 09-18-2004 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garry1221
if there's only a small handful of 'strong teams' then it does nothing for most casual fans, if you've got detroit fans in atlanta and the only way they'll come to the rink is if detroit is playing, then it doesn't matter how atlanta draws any other time, there would still be one less person for 99 % of home games,

this is not a reason that a cap would be bad for hockey, no one knows if it would create mediocrity, example, on paper the rangers should have won 3 or 4 cups in the last 5 - 6 years, but paper means nothing on ice, if we had a league full of teams like the rangers then there would be the mediocrity that you speak of, but as of now, there's nothing to prove that a cap would create mediocrity throughout the league, i'd actually think it would create a stronger league, if there were players who couldn't sign w/ any of the big market teams because of cap reasons, yet are talented enough to still make a difference on a team, then they'd either a) have to sign w/ a 'smaller market team' or b) play in europe for less $$ then they could get here

if the above situation did happen you'd see more teams starting to gain popularity as well as producing more points, making a more competitive league as a whole

There is nothing wrong with the competitiveness of the league -- certianly nothing that warrants a salary cap. The reason the league wants a cap is purely economical.

The fact you mention the Rangers goes to my point, which is that money doesn't buy NHL happiness. You need to build a team, cap or no cap. The Red Wings did it in the 90's, as did New Jersey, Colorado and Dallas. Calgary certainly didn't buy their way to the Cup Finals, nor did Anaheim, Carolina, or Buffalo.

However, saying on paper the Rangers should have won 3 - 4 Cups in the past 5 - 6 years is bordering on ridiculous. They should have made the playoffs those years, but the win the Cup 3 - 4 times...

me2 09-18-2004 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
There is nothing wrong with the competitiveness of the league -- certianly nothing that warrants a salary cap. The reason the league wants a cap is purely economical.

The fact you mention the Rangers goes to my point, which is that money doesn't buy NHL happiness. You need to build a team, cap or no cap. The Red Wings did it in the 90's, as did New Jersey, Colorado and Dallas. Calgary certainly didn't buy their way to the Cup Finals, nor did Anaheim, Carolina, or Buffalo.

However, saying on paper the Rangers should have won 3 - 4 Cups in the past 5 - 6 years is bordering on ridiculous. They should have made the playoffs those years, but the win the Cup 3 - 4 times...


Would Detroit be half the cup chance they are if their total salary was $45m? Would their Dynasty have lasted without money?
Building a cup team is only half the issue, it takes big money to keep that team together and big money to prolong its life (like Detroit with all of its UFA signings and picking up older stars for cheaper trade prices).

How long will Tampa be able to maintain a cup level team if its budget is under $40m or under $45m.

garry1221 09-19-2004 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2
Would Detroit be half the cup chance they are if their total salary was $45m? Would their Dynasty have lasted without money?
Building a cup team is only half the issue, it takes big money to keep that team together and big money to prolong its life (like Detroit with all of its UFA signings and picking up older stars for cheaper trade prices).

How long will Tampa be able to maintain a cup level team if its budget is under $40m or under $45m.

ah has been said a million times over now, if a cap/stiff lux tax is brought into effect in the next cba, then all salaries will be lessened enough to where a team like tampa bay CAN continue to re'sign its players, teams WILL NOT have to be ripped apart limb from limb just because a cap/ lux tax is phased in. It won't be set in stone right away, it will give teams time to prepare so to speak, to let the huge contracts die off/retire/etc.

Prof_it 09-19-2004 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2
Would Detroit be half the cup chance they are if their total salary was $45m? Would their Dynasty have lasted without money?
Building a cup team is only half the issue, it takes big money to keep that team together and big money to prolong its life (like Detroit with all of its UFA signings and picking up older stars for cheaper trade prices).

How long will Tampa be able to maintain a cup level team if its budget is under $40m or under $45m.




I'm always confused why Detroit is labled a big market team in hockey buy a small market in nearly every other sport. During the 80's, the Red Wings were a terrible team, far from the cash cow that they were 'managed' into. Through strong drafts, excellent coaching, they were able to build a strong team. They didn't start their free agent signing until they had built a team that could generate the revenue needed. As their success grew on the ice, so did their revenue. Detroit may be on the brink of seeing their investment in those aging free agents return them to the middle of the pack. If so, I think you will see them return to their original success- drafting, coaching, and development.

hockeytown9321 09-19-2004 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garry1221
if there's only a small handful of 'strong teams' then it does nothing for most casual fans, if you've got detroit fans in atlanta and the only way they'll come to the rink is if detroit is playing, then it doesn't matter how atlanta draws any other time, there would still be one less person for 99 % of home games,

this is not a reason that a cap would be bad for hockey, no one knows if it would create mediocrity, example, on paper the rangers should have won 3 or 4 cups in the last 5 - 6 years, but paper means nothing on ice, if we had a league full of teams like the rangers then there would be the mediocrity that you speak of, but as of now, there's nothing to prove that a cap would create mediocrity throughout the league, i'd actually think it would create a stronger league, if there were players who couldn't sign w/ any of the big market teams because of cap reasons, yet are talented enough to still make a difference on a team, then they'd either a) have to sign w/ a 'smaller market team' or b) play in europe for less $$ then they could get here

if the above situation did happen you'd see more teams starting to gain popularity as well as producing more points, making a more competitive league as a whole


They're not casual Detoit fans, they're casual hockey fans. They go to see Detroit because they know they're loaded with great players and they've won alot. In ten years, that team might be Nashville. But its not going to be anybody if thre's a cap.

hockeytown9321 09-19-2004 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
They would be much more interested, but not for the reasons you suggest.

If there is a competitive balance issue with the old CBA it is that we are just as likely to get a dynasty in Vancouver as in New York. Once built, really good teams stay built until the core fades. That's bad. Look at the teams you think are in the rise? Which ones are in major American media markets? Does that augur well for future ratings?

No dynasties are better. If results were completely random every year, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Detroit would be taking a regular turn at the run to the Finals.

One thing that should come from the latest US deal is less revenue sharing. The Canadian teams should stop subsidising the American ones on the TV deal. If the Canadian package was split up among the Canadian teams, each would get $10 million US from the deal. Let the Americans divide up the ESPN/NBC money.

Why should Edmonton ship TV money to the Hawks and Rangers?

Tom


Why is it bad for teams to draft well, and keep those players for the duration of their careers? This is the misguided reason so many people on here are in favor of a cap.

garry1221 09-19-2004 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
They're not casual Detoit fans, they're casual hockey fans. They go to see Detroit because they know they're loaded with great players and they've won alot. In ten years, that team might be Nashville. But its not going to be anybody if thre's a cap.

please give reasons that you think a cap would tear apart a great team, i believe the opposite because i see a cap a) driving player salaries down b)allowing teams to re-sign their players because the market could no longer significantly over-inflate a players value ie martin lapointe

a cap/lux tax could work completely well in the nhl, but the lpayers don't want it to work cause it would mean no more 8 - 9 - 10 mil paychecks coming out... booo freakin hoooo

thinkwild 09-19-2004 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Why is it bad for teams to draft well, and keep those players for the duration of their careers? This is the misguided reason so many people on here are in favor of a cap.

Well, keep them for the duration of their careers if they win by the time they are UFAs when they have the choice where to play. At that time, they get to choose to play with the young teams that did develop a competitive team. Hopefully by that you are one of them, flush with playoff money to continue paying for them.

Theres no reason to keep a declining player at a high salary, if he isnt going to be part of the young core that you eventually will have to win with. And that seems fair to me.

John Flyers Fan 09-19-2004 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garry1221
please give reasons that you think a cap would tear apart a great team, i believe the opposite because i see a cap a) driving player salaries down b)allowing teams to re-sign their players because the market could no longer significantly over-inflate a players value ie martin lapointe

a cap/lux tax could work completely well in the nhl, but the lpayers don't want it to work cause it would mean no more 8 - 9 - 10 mil paychecks coming out... booo freakin hoooo

A hard cap ala the NFL certainly does break up great teams. You can't afford to keep an abundance of good players.

With a hard cap in the $31-35 million range Ottawa could never afford to keep Redden, Chara, Phillips, Alfreddson, Hossa, Havlat and Spezza together.

A luxury tax system IMO is the way to go.

thinkwild 09-19-2004 01:19 PM

Im going to keep posting these articles because people keep holding up the NFL and NBA concepts of parity as some great oracle for success when they are false prophets offering false hope. And they are going to have a hard time renegotiating them again in their round of bargaining.

This isnt an isolated article. Its all over even on the NFL pre-game shows.

Downside of NFL Parity

Quote:

The other leagues are supposed to be jealous.

The NFL hails parity as a way to keep the casual fan interested because it prolongs the local team's odds of making the playoffs. And once there, anyone can beat anyone - for proof, just read down the list of recent Super Bowl champs. Rams. Ravens. Patriots. A who's-who of preseason chumps and historical pariahs that made it to Disneyland, providing legions of once-forlorn fans a reason to finally rejoice.
Again, please give a link and do not post more than a paragraph or two from an online article, otherwise it's a copyright violation, thanks - Sotnos

hockeytown9321 09-19-2004 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garry1221
please give reasons that you think a cap would tear apart a great team, i believe the opposite because i see a cap a) driving player salaries down b)allowing teams to re-sign their players because the market could no longer significantly over-inflate a players value ie martin lapointe

a cap/lux tax could work completely well in the nhl, but the lpayers don't want it to work cause it would mean no more 8 - 9 - 10 mil paychecks coming out... booo freakin hoooo

I've given numerous expampes of realisitc situations where teams will lose good and great players because if a cap. Look through my old posts, there's no point for me to type it all again.

A luxury tax is much different than a cap, and its something the players have offered. Whether you think their proposal was worthwhile or not isn't relevent. It was a starting point. Negotiation is about finding middle ground. So far, the players have moved and the owners haven't. I dislike Brian Burke, but he at least made a legitimate proposal for the owners side. If the league took his solution, they could actually negotiate and have something done before the game is ruined.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.