View Single Post
Old
12-21-2012, 01:10 PM
  #101
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
Just something I've seen across these boards and find puzzling. Why is this expansion not being brought up when discussing the 'blame game' consider the following;

-this came on the 3rd consecutive year a franchise relocated and only 2 years after the last lockout (in which the owners did not get what they wanted) ended. And at the time the canadian dollar was approaching rock bottom with all but Toronto and possibly Montreal in jeopardy.
-the NHL willingly extended the CBA which was deemed to be in the players favour by 4 years AND concurrently added 75 jobs for them without getting a single concession from them (the only concession was reducing roster sized from 24 to 23 but the net result was still more jobs)
-the expansion choices themselves; Atlanta eventually left, Columbus and Nashville are low market teams with Minnesota being mid market
-the league had already grown from 21 to 26 teams within the previous 6 years and more than one third of the current NHL cities did not have a team at the start of the decade (5 via expansion, 4 via relocation)

now consider how things would have gone if the league did not make the ill advised expansion;
-the CBA expires in 2000. It's likely the 2004 lockout either doesn't happen or isn't as nasty.
-with the future CBA's, there wouldn't be as much to fight for. Many believe it's the small market teams causing the lockout and without the expansion, there'd be 3 fewer
-Minnesota and Winnipeg would be viable outlets for failing franchises.
-the overall logistics of having 4 fewer teams would be beneficial; all 4 of those expansion teams were generally lower draws while on the road. And it also added a higher percentage of meaningless games with 4 more teams missing the playoffs every year. And the talent pool would be less watered down


I just question with the players getting blamed for everything wrong with the sport, why is this decision not being brought up when you could easily argue that this expansion was the worst self-inflicted disaster on any sports league?
I don't see how this is a disaster at all. I think most people on here have no idea about the basic economics work. I don't see how many times I have to say this: No matter how many teams you have there were always be teams that draw less than others. If there weren't teams in Nashville and Columbus other markets would be low level.

And the reason they expanded was they needed the money. so expansion team payments go to the other teams. Those teams then can pay their payrolls. How many NHL teams have failed in the last 30 years? How many have failed in the NBA?

There seems to be continual posts on here blaming the lower revenue markets for the lock-out. That isn't what is happening. It is the amount of total revenue that players get that is causing the problems. The NFL is doing great and the players get a lower share than the NHL. The arguments on here follow no logic or have nothing related to anything in reality.

Repeat after me: No matter how few teams exist there will always be a team that generates the least revenue.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote