Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
View Single Post
12-11-2012, 05:54 PM
The Eternal Skeptic
Join Date: Feb 2006
Originally Posted by
Both of you leave yourselfs open. This can't happen with 21 or 24 teams?
I don't get the contraction argument. All you manage to do with that is move the bottom end. Instead of having PHO, CBS, NYI bleeding money it's MIN, WPG, EDM. That's ALL it would do. And you greatly hurt your longterm potential as a league. Pointless. Why do we need to "protect our game" so much? I want to spread the game of hockey as much as possible. I would love if hockey was as popular as soccer. Sure Canada would no longer be the #1 team, but more people would get to enjoy hockey. How is that a bad thing?
The key is always to share the revenue and make a level playing field for all. It drives profits. Every team can win every year. That's what people want. Overly dominant teams and doormat teams both suffer in attendance. You need a competitive league to drive prices in Toronto/New York, so you need the salary cap and the revenue sharing to help level the playing field for places like Winnipeg and Phoenix. It will also drive prices up in Winnipeg and Phoenix. Look at the Atlanta Braves. They were so good for so many years it ended up hurting them at the gate since nobody wanted to show up. By the opposite end, you have Pittsburgh Pirates. That is not a healthy league, it is one who is losing fans and falling further behind every year. Sure right now the owners are happy cashing revenue sharing checks, but long term the future is bleak for the MLB, that's what happens when only a few teams compete and you don't have a competitive system. It's that simple.
Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 12-11-2012 at
View Public Profile
Holden Caulfield's albums
Find More Posts by Holden Caulfield