View Single Post
09-02-2012, 10:11 PM
Registered User
Zil's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,304
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
that said the mistake is trying to compare the nfl in 2012 to the nhl in 2012. what you need to do is compare where the nhl is now to WHERE the nfl WAS back when they put all the revenue sharing in place and all the things that they did to grow franchise values and get the tv deal they have. the nfl didn't make $9 billion in revenue overnight. the focus should be on the sacrifices that teams like the giants made years ago and how much that has paid off for them in the long run
It doesn't matter what time period you use. The NHL will never be able to challenge the NBA or MLB popularity and revenue generating wise, let alone the freaking NFL.

The fact of the matter is that the league over-expanded because the owners are greedy and wanted expansion fees. Now you have too many teams in weak markets and things are out of wack. Obviously, you'll never have either side going to contraction, but the league needs to play to its strengths as much as possible. Its strengths are the big Northeastern and Mid-Western markets (along with Canada).

By all means amp revenue sharing up to Fehr's proposed levels if it begets labor peace and lets the small market owners grab their cash (or try and compete if they're so inclined). The NBA just amped up their revenue sharing. It's Bettman's obsession with parity as the way toward league success that has to go. The NBA has a cap, but it has never had anything resembling parity and the league is generating tons upon tons of cash. They succeed by leaning on their flagship franchises and their big star players. Marketing wise, the NHL should follow suit.

Zil is offline