View Single Post
01-05-2013, 07:46 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by WiFi75 View Post
If you take unprofitable teams away from the equation, end result will be like..

Less jobs for players.
Fewer games (smaller revenue for profitable teams).
Smaller or only local TV-deals (less money)

While revenues sharing may sound unfair, unprofitable teams do help bigger teams and players to make more money (because of more games).

Moving worst teams to better markets would be good idea, but world economics are unpredictable. You never know what area will be healthy for hockey like next 20 years..

While some fans would like smaller league.. I think not the players nor the owners are interested in it.
Less jobs-disagree
fewer games-disagree
smaller or only local tv deals-disagree

Let's say the contract 2 teams, so that is 46 players. Well, a compromise is to expand rosters by 2 players each. 28x2=56, so 10 jobs ADDED.

Fewer games, again a myth. Schedule format can be re-done. Let's say they remove 2 teams and go to the 4-division format with 7 teams each. Can play 7 games against your division teams (42) and 2 against everyone else (42) for 84 games. So you now have more games, and more division games which likely get better ratings.

the local tv deal only is a myth. losing 2 markets is not going to scare off NBC as the ratings the local affiliates draw in those markets are likely small.

patnyrnyg is offline