View Single Post
Old
11-19-2003, 04:49 AM
  #58
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The standard is never too high. If the team can't meet it, they aren't an NHL market.
Well, they have been given an NHL franchise, have they not. They get a vote on the board, right? Therefore, they have a say in the CBA.

The fact is, right now, the smaller markets, if they do everything right, cannot sustain a team as good for as long as a bigger market, if they do everything right. Therefore, they cannot achieve the same status of elite as the other guys. If that's the case, they have no purpose being in the league. This is an area where we agree on.

Where we differ is that I want to level the playing field, so that all team have equal accessibility to "elite" status. It doesn't mean mediocrity (you have still yet to grasp this concept). It means that Edmonton has the same ability to become elite as Detroit.

What you want to do is cut out the bottom of the pack, and eliminate all teams that cannot achieve "elite" status. That means the elite teams are now less prestigous compared to the "average" NHL team, or more "mediocre" if you will. If my solution is an advocation of mediocrity, then yours is as well. Both of our solutions will end up with about the same level of deviation from the average. The only difference is that the average level of play of your NHL is higher. In mine, it is lower, but there are more teams. I am not advocating expansion. I disagreed with the last wave of expansion, but it's too late to turn back the clock. The NHL has given them teams, and now they have a say in the future of the NHL, and it would be stupid for them to support anything that eliminates their existence.

discostu is offline