View Single Post
Old
11-17-2012, 10:19 AM
  #513
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
As much as I like Simmons, I can't take seriously any argument that is predicated upon the belief that "there are too many NHL teams." Furthermore, to suggest that Bettman step down over it, after being the only man in history able to get the NHL owners to sit down and behave (and this is something people take far too much for granted) is just silly.

Did the 2005 CBA fail to produce an infinitely viable agreement? Yes, but then again, so did the previous NFL agreement and the previous NBA agreement. The fact that the 2005 deal was not perfect doesn't make any other deal more viable. To keep with my "quotes from video games" theme here:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all others which have been tried."

There is an excellent, promising solution out there, but good luck getting the players to ever agree on it. Instead of setting revenues against the league average (as the current system does) they should be set against the league median. In such a situation, 50% of teams are necessarily in the top half of the league (and contributing more to revenue sharing than receiving) and the fluctuations of individual teams does not meaningfully affect the total salary split. If Toronto raises ticket prices, driving their revenue up $210MM, that increased revenue doesn't force every team to spend an extra $3.5MM because of Toronto's success. Likewise, if the bottom falls out and people flee from Leafs tickets, driving down revenues by $210MM, teams aren't allowed to spend $3.5MM less because of Toronto's misfortunes. Only changes to the median (and therefore the league as a whole, or a significant number of teams "in the middle" of revenues) would cause changes to player salaries.

The issue here is that people are more apt to believe the sport will grow than shrink, so such a system is more apt to limit player salary growth than protect them from reductions. Considering Fehr's behavior thus far, it seems extremely unlikely the players would ever consider such a system. Furthermore, the benefits and costs of such a system are significantly harder for the uninitiated to understand, so there would be even less pressure from the actual players to try get such a deal across.
great suggestion, its clear that the last system had its flaws and those flaws are what happened, but what you are suggesting solves the issue of growth, if the league grows as a whole so do the player pay.

also as "bad as Garry" has been he did get the league to 3.3b in revenues, all those calling for his firing need to look at their pay stub and shut up

forthewild is offline