Are the big market teams the losers here?
View Single Post
01-05-2013, 04:45 PM
Join Date: Jan 2012
Originally Posted by
Pilky01 is telling the truth. A cap will never make up for the fact NBC, CBS, FOX will get pissed if a team not from the east coast or Chicago is not in the finals of any sport. It won't change the that Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cleveland are not the first choice because like any other 20-25 year old players want to be where they can have a life. All the salary cap does is spread the talent around to keep everyone happy but the TV networks. NBC does not like when a Canadian(outside of MTL, TOR) are on. Why? Because the market wants The largest TV markets. No one is jumping to live in the small market Midwest and there's a reason for that, not because of the salary cap, but because it sucks.
Haha, obviously the networks would prefer a final with two big market teams involved. It almost guarantees more viewers. But the finals are such a small part of the overall TV revenue and what you fail to take into account is that those same networks want to televise and promote a league whose 30 successful teams are spread throughout the biggest TV markets in North America. And it's hard for the NHL to have 30 successful NHL teams spread out through North America without a salary cap and parity. Especially in small markets and non-traditional hockey cities.
I didn't know that HFBOARDS was full of network executives and successful professional sports owners well versed in marketing in TV contracts. My only question for you all is do you really think that if your 10 team super league with no salary cap is viable and would indeed be a huge success then why hasn't the NHL moved in that direction? Or the NFL or NBA? Why are these people doing everything the possible can to move away from your "winning recipe"?
Last edited by du5566*: 01-05-2013 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by du5566*