View Single Post
10-31-2012, 11:44 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,973
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ducks DVM View Post
Funny thing about being the minority when a vote is taken, you lose. They can't just stop revenue sharing if there are enough owners who think revenue sharing should continue - and there always will be.
Just think, the other 25 owners could push through a CBA where the top 5 revenue teams have to put in 40% towards revenue sharing!
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
Im suggesting you let each team operate how they see fit. If a team can generate top of the league revenue, then they can afford to spend a lot of money.
Which is how we lost WIN, MIN, QUE and HART the first time!

Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
And you will have a bunch of teams spending very little, but possibly doing it by making a tiny profit, or losing a little. Either way, it would be more profitable than the current system or anything currently on the table.
Which lowers interest in NHL hockey around the continent. Which lowers TV ratings around the continent. Which lowers advertising and TV deals around the continent, and everyone loses money.

Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
All comparisons to the NFL model are absurd until you figure out how to get the NHL National TV deals like the NFL has. Its important to play in the real world, not some make believe land.
The dollar values do not matter. The percentages do. The NFL shares 41% of LOCAL revenues and the NHL shares 4.5%. The other leagues believe parity is beneficial for a reason.

Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
It's not absurd to look at the NFL model and make an assessment on why it is the most popular pro sports league in North America. Parity is promoted in the NFL via a salary cap and revenue sharing. That model obviously works. The popularity of MLB is falling.
Hey, MLB even shares more local revenue than the NHL by a lot: 39%

Originally Posted by scotchex View Post
NFL is popular because Americans like football a lot more than anything else. I think the parity helps, but the main issue is just that Americans really, really love football.

NBA has been doing well in recent years without parity. Either Kobe Bryant or LeBron James have been in the NBA Finals each of the last 6 years. Imagine if either Crosby or Ovechkin had been in the Stanley Cup Finals for 6 straight years.
That's a cute stat, but doesn't really say anything about parity. Jeff Carter and Marian Hossa have combined for five Finals appearances in the last six seasons, one less than Kobe/LeBron.

Nine different teams have made the NBA finals in the last six years and ten different NHL teams have made the finals in the last six years.

Originally Posted by scotchex View Post
The problem MLB and NHL are having is difficulty creating stars. National stars draw a national audience. NFL creates stars easily due to its popularity. NBA creates stars easily due to the nature of the game. A dominant individual player has more impact in basketball than the other pro sports. So the best player ends up winning championships, usually multiple times.

But the success of the NFL is not due to parity. It's due to football being football. And America loves football.
I think that's moving away from the point: It's not about "parity" it's quite simply: Being competitive sells tickets.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote