View Single Post
Old
12-14-2012, 03:21 PM
  #441
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,924
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
If you contracted 10 teams than the 18th, 19th, and 20th teams in the league would be on verge of bankruptcy as they would have to pay more money for players. And eventually you will just have 2 teams with this logic.
The reason contraction isn't an option today is because the NHL system is broken. And as you say... getting rid of the bottom 5 teams just means you end up with 5 new bottom teams that end up struggling.

If the NHL actually had a system in place to make the majority of the teams healthy and was fair to all teams, then yes you could contract a couple that just aren't working out, and it wouldn't hurt the other teams.

The authors' point was to contract 10 teams because it looks like the NHL and NHLPA will never come up with a system that can make anymore than 20 teams financially viable, so you might as well cut down to the number that does work. The thing that most people are missing is the point that no matter what the NHL league does, no matter how much the players give, it just may not be possible to be a 30 team league. And there is nothing wrong with that. Even when the NHL only had 21 teams, there were teams still losing money every year.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote