View Single Post
Old
09-18-2004, 09:08 PM
  #5
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
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

garry1221 is offline