View Single Post
12-04-2012, 04:55 PM
Registered User
coolasprICE's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,768
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I've already refuted the pathetic argument that contraction would solve all problems, but I'll do so again.

Currently, the four teams doing worst are ranked 27-30 in operating income. If you remove the 4 worst teams, the average revenue per team should go up and ... the teams now ranked 23-26 will be the 4 lowest teams and now struggling to keep up with the new, higher average. You'll be right back to square one. Will you suggest contracting those?

In today's NHL, you have parity of expenses simultaneously with disparity of income. As long as you have both, there will be successful teams and struggling teams. You can reduce the league to 10 teams and you'll still have 2 or 3 teams at the bottom that would "need to be contracted" if one follows this asinine argument.

At best, contraction might work if there are 1 or 2 teams that are outliers, in which case relocation works better anyway. For the vast majority of the teams, income and expenses are distributed smoothly and continuously, and are self-similar, thus contraction would solve nothing.
Really, what are you talking about?

Hockey needs to be played in markets that want to watch hockey. Just because the Panthers can sell out a playoff game does not make them a viable market.

What about the struggling U.S economy, and the effects that's going to have in the future in markets where hockey is already an after thought?

If we are only considering 2 more teams in Canada, than that saves 50% of the jobs lost in what I believe should NHL free markets: Florida, Tampa, Dallas and Phoenix

coolasprICE is offline