Are the big market teams the losers here?
View Single Post
12-31-2012, 01:35 PM
Join Date: Mar 2004
Although I am a fan of a large market team, I am not against revenue sharing. However I must point out that the other sports, with much more effective and competent management have been successful at it. The NHL's USA TV contract is a joke, and the only reason they have that is that NBC had nothing else to fill their programming on their sports channel. Meanwhile, the expansion into southern US markets is a failure. Why on earth are there 2 teams in Florida? Why did the league try Atlanta again? Why has this joke in Phoenix been allowed and enabled by the NHL? Why did anyone think the NY area could support 3 teams, or the LA market 2? This is all the doing of Gary Bettman. Add to this a moronic discipline process that suspends players 6 games for saying something stupid, but one game or no games for intentionally injuring an opponent, and on-ice rules that change by the month, and there is no wonder why most US casual fans do not embrace it. Finally, a league that locks out the players 3 times over 18 years, including canceling an entire season to get a cap system that is now inadequate cannot and should not be taken seriously. That is how we got here. The big market teams have lost a ton by missing half the season. The small market teams are ahead of the game with the league shut down. This is the only pro league that is run like a backwater rec league. And to add to that, it costs hundreds of dollars to take the family to a game in seats where the puck does not look like a pea. It is really too bad, and demonstrates that the game is such a great experience that despite the complete incompetence of the league management and with the amazing support of Canadians, it still exists.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ThisYearsModel