STL Post Dispatch: Blues [players] get economics lesson
View Single Post
11-19-2003, 10:37 PM
Join Date: Sep 2003
Originally Posted by
I still cant see why owners would think by bringing Col and Nash to a middle ground, that both markets would overall generate more revenue.
For every Colorado there are four Nashvilles. They probably do expect Colorado to lose revenue, but winners will still get higher profits because payroll has to stay under a cap.
I'd like the NHL to consider other possibilities:
1) Include more teams in the playoffs. I know this sounds like heresy, but the current setup runs against tradition. The regular season is supposed to knock out bottom feeders. It is great to have races for the playoffs, but too many good teams miss them.
2) Alternatively, don't include more playoff rounds, but re-align geographically into four divisions and then all but eliminate interdivisional games. The eight team Western league would be like the old 6 team NHL.
This sets up sub-objectives worth pursuing. First, make the playoffs. Win round one and we are in the Western Final. Win round two - hurrah, we have a Western Champ. Win a third round - double hurrah - we win the Carl Brewer Cup for defeating the Northern division. Play the winner of the Ted Lindsay Trophy for Lord Stanley.
3) Quit describing smart trades, trades to make a better future as salary dumps that show the team is not committed to winning. The Rangers traded Andy Bathgate in 1963
they were committed to winning. The Oilers traded Doug Weight because they were never going to win a Cup with him. Market rebuilding as exactly that, the quickest way to the Stanley Cup.
4) Make rebuilding easier by limiting the amateur draft to one round. The can't miss players will all go at 18, but any rebuilding team will be able to find a raft of decent 20 year olds to sign. The best of these players will want to sign with a team with open jobs. Anybody halfway competent should be able to ice an exciting young team within a couple of years.
5) Put a more entertaining product on the ice. People will support an exciting young team that loses, but they will not pay to to see a young team that traps its way to losses. Right now only winners sell because the hockey is too boring. Hockey fans don't mind paying to see an exciting loss. Hockey fans feel ripped off by a boring loss.
Montreal fans took a tough loss in Vancouver last night, but I doubt whether many of them would call the game boring. The first period was the worst period of entertainment from a Vancouver Canuck game this season - boring is a polite word - but thereafter it turned into a barnburner. The Canucks outskated the Montreal trap, the Habs found themselves playing Vancouver's game, and jeez, they didn't do half bad.
Playing defensive chess does not give Montreal a better chance to win. They will lose 2-1 to a better team that plays it better. Why not run and gun and lose 5-4?
View Public Profile
Visit Tom_Benjamin's homepage!
Find More Posts by Tom_Benjamin