View Single Post
11-06-2012, 06:26 PM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
It should be like those rides that say you must be this tall when standing on all of your revenues to play in the nhl. What is that minimum requirement to get a seat at the table?

The NHL did have requirements set out for franchises to continue receiving revenue sharing, just as many fans when designing the system also seem to propose. They cant be a big market and get revenue sharing, and they cant be slacker welfare queens. And it sounds great. Until the CBA is next expiring, and then all these teams are held up as shining examples of struggling markets unable to compete unless the players take a pay cut.

Many are now coming to the conclusion that the linkage they last thought was worth fighting for actually made things worse. And next time we may realize that the reason it gets worse is we keep trying to find the best way to manufacture parity, but like linkage last time, it itself is the problem when you dont have teams on an even enough starting plane to achieve it.

When the Sens came into the league, with the worst expansion draft, and languished in lottery position for half a decade, we were poor, had no chance to compete, and made a profit and survived. Parity is a nice goal, once they have 30 relatively equal teams. It seems to constantly fail though when it is used as a method for getting there.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote