STL Post Dispatch: Blues [players] get economics lesson
View Single Post
11-19-2003, 10:22 AM
Join Date: Nov 2002
Originally Posted by
Let us assume for a second that the Discostu Fantasy Island view of the NHL actually reflects reality. Let us assume that this Calgary-New York scenario actually resembles something that could happen.
Let us assume that the large markets, er, the rich markets, er, the big spending markets have an advantage that they did not earn and do not deserve. (This last assumption really sticks in my craw. The Red wings deserve their success! To suggest otherwise - that they have an unfair advantage - is an insult to the organization.)
Let us assume that New York will be able to buy the final piece when they get on the cusp of their next dynasty, while poor Calgary will not. Let us assume the ridiculous, that discostu is right. (I know, I know. But if discostu can pretend this hard, so can we.)
Hands up those who want to change the nature of the NHL to solve this terrible, terrible problem. Hands up those who want to eliminate elite teams to eliminate this massive advantage the Rangers have. Hands up those who vote for mediocrity so the Rangers won't be able to buy a Cup in the next decade. Hands up those who want fundamental structural change so that Carolina fans think the league would be fairer. Hands up everyone who thinks the NHL should prevent anybody ever getting as good as the Avalanche or the Wings let alone the old Habs, Islanders or Oilers.
It's a joke. Even if we assume that Hell has frozen over and as a result discostu has a point worth making, it is a joke.
It is prescribing chemotherapy for a mosquito bite.
You've resorted back to childish and immature antics, which means we're back to the point where you've run out of arguments. Why don't you try providing some reason why this scenario, or other off-shoots like it, is unreasonable, instead of trying to label it as fantasy. I guess you can't.
The purpose of the example was to disprove the claim that you, and BigDaddyMeatWhistle have been making that economic advantage does not lead to any performance advantage. That statement was ridiculous, and has now been proven false.
As for "earning" their market advantage, that's nice in fantasy world (since you like playing this game) that you seem to think that it's the fault of the Oilers, or the Flames, that they don't have the revenue potential of the New York Rangers. I mean, come on, what are these guys doing, a booming city like Edmonton should have no problem of getting the same amount of dollars from less than 10% of the population base. They must not be trying hard enough if they can't maximize their revenues to the same extent of their NHL brethren.
Unfortunately, it's not the case. The NHL has given out franchise to 30 different markets. Some markets have more going for them (population, income level, hockey heritage), others have less. My point, one that you fail to grasp, is that any team that is maximizing their local market in terms of revenues, should be able to sustain an "elite" team, the same way that the "richer" teams do. If they cannot, then there is no point of them being in the NHL, as they only serve as fodder for the "richer" teams. That's where the class system in the NHL comes into play.
You've said the same thing yourself. You said that any team that cannot field an elite team shouldn't be in the NHL. And like I said earlier, where we differ, is that I would like to see a system gives these teams equal accessibility to elite as their counterparts, while you rather kill them off. The difference is, it is more likely that any team that is at risk of being out-of-reach of elite would rather support a CBA that sees to their increased competitiveness than one that will likely see their demise.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by discostu