TV Deal and Competitiveness
View Single Post
09-18-2004, 07:55 PM
Join Date: Sep 2003
Originally Posted by
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?
View Public Profile
Visit Tom_Benjamin's homepage!
Find More Posts by Tom_Benjamin