Wouldn't A Superleague Be the Best Solution?
View Single Post
01-08-2004, 07:41 AM
Join Date: Feb 2003
But seriously, Degroat, the two things have nothing to do with oneanother.
If people were prepared to watch Detroit, Philly, Toronto, Dallas, NYR and Colorado play eachother 14 times a year, a six team league could support enormous payroll demands. Since so little of the revenues come from national (as opposed to regional) TV revenue, there's almost no revenue sharing as it is. Accordingly, the number of franchises has little if anything to do with it.
A 16 team league with a quality of play closer to the Olympics could -- quite conceivably -- garner enough TV interest to make it a national TV force. If so, the revenues would be sufficient -- once added to local TV revenues in already strong markets -- to permit payrolls well above the current average of, what, 35 million.
The other thing is this: you misunderstand the importance of the number I chose and misread the original post. I said (paraphrased) "if they do x then we'll END UP WITH a 16 team league." If they ink a bad deal for the owners (and ultimately for the players too), we get to see some franchises fold and we're on our way to what we (should) all want: a really great league. What the cap is when that eventually happens is anybody's guess: maybe there won't be one at all.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by JV