View Single Post
Old
11-18-2003, 11:28 AM
  #51
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The next generation of elite teams will apparently include the huge markets of Vancouver, Ottawa and Tampa. They might end up with 9 or ten good players, too.
The point is, without any change, the next potential generation of teams may not be able to sustain 9 or 10 good players in their prime, if their market can't support it.

Take whatever definition you want of elite teams. If there isn't the means for every team to get to that level, then it is too high of a standard. I do not believe that all 30 teams could support the talent level that Colorado has, even if they were maximizing their local revenue streams (i.e. getting the highest ticket price that can be supported, getting the additional playoff rounds, etc.).

Contraction supporters will say to eliminate any team that cannot get that level. I'm not crazy about the idea, but even if I was, I don't think it's feasible. If you put a system where at least 5 or 6 teams will fall off the map, it will not be supported by the owners. There's probably at least 15 teams that would see themselves at risk of being in that group, and would not be in favour of it. Why would they approve a deal that put's their investment at such risk?

discostu is online now