even if there are some players actually that dumb, which i find hard to believe, the other players would inform the few idiots of these pretty obvious facts, don't you think?
if not that, then the NHLPA leadership would obviously be more informed of the facts and then disseminate that information.... a free market is not good for most players, this is as obvious as the nose on my face... no organization as a whole could be this stupid
The NHLPA has obviously been operating under hive, pack, minded collective thinking.
The "intelligence" of the group, or tar and pitchforks rabble is usually grade school level if that. People that are mobilized by angry collectives and ranting groups often engage in selective thinking that is usually immune to analysis, scrutiny, examination. Reactionary Group*think* is usually stupid, pretty much as a rule, and is the case here.
Doesn't matter much what the intelligence of individuals in the collective is either. Once people become mobilized by angry rhetoric and buy in to all the rants they've basically signed up for group stupid membership.
This is a common dynamic impacting groups mobilized in anger. Never infer operative intelligence or sane actions in an angry mob.
even if there are some players actually that dumb, which i find hard to believe, the other players would inform the few idiots of these pretty obvious facts, don't you think?
if not that, then the NHLPA leadership would obviously be more informed of the facts and then disseminate that information.... a free market is not good for most players, this is as obvious as the nose on my face... no organization as a whole could be this stupid
Please explain you concept that a free market would benefit few
Please explain you concept that a free market would benefit few
its been explained a hundred times over, go read it for yourself, i don't feel like typing out a few pages just for you to ignore it (as you apparently have done many times over if you still don't understand the argument by now)
The NHLPA has obviously been operating under hive, pack, minded collective thinking.
The "intelligence" of the group, or tar and pitchforks rabble is usually grade school level if that. People that are mobilized by angry collectives and ranting groups often engage in selective thinking that is usually immune to analysis, scrutiny, examination. Reactionary Group*think* is usually stupid, pretty much as a rule, and is the case here.
Doesn't matter much what the intelligence of individuals in the collective is either. Once people become mobilized by angry rhetoric and buy in to all the rants they've basically signed up for group stupid membership.
This is a common dynamic impacting groups mobilized in anger. Never infer operative intelligence or sane actions in an angry mob.
And yet they have consistently negotiated better deals than the majority of their peers in other sports and will do so again when this CBA is signed
The NHLPA has obviously been operating under hive, pack, minded collective thinking.
The "intelligence" of the group, or tar and pitchforks rabble is usually grade school level if that. People that are mobilized by angry collectives and ranting groups often engage in selective thinking that is usually immune to analysis, scrutiny, examination. Reactionary Group*think* is usually stupid, pretty much as a rule, and is the case here.
Doesn't matter much what the intelligence of individuals in the collective is either. Once people become mobilized by angry rhetoric and buy in to all the rants they've basically signed up for group stupid membership.
This is a common dynamic impacting groups mobilized in anger. Never infer operative intelligence or sane actions in an angry mob.
that's a really good point about "group think".... group think has screwed over a lot of organizations where the membership is much smarter and better educated than the average NHLer (happens within engineering teams a lot actually).... good points
And yet they have consistently negotiated better deals than the majority of their peers in other sports and will do so again when this CBA is signed
Its a sociological precept on group, mob, behavior. Once the angry faction takes over with blinding rhetoric and unreasonable expectation you can pretty much bet that the collective is going to be fairly immune to other consideration.
Unless theres reaction within that collective and in essence a coup that establishes a different form of momentum for the group.
Group behavior tends to the stupid. Add anger and its like throwing drugs at stupidity.
its been explained a hundred times over, go read it for yourself, i don't feel like typing out a few pages just for you to ignore it (as you apparently have done many times over if you still don't understand the argument by now)
Can you summarize
Or at least provide an example of a sport with a free market system that provides less to its members?
The argument holds very little water unless you're only argument is that the minimum wagers will see there pay decrease.
To which I say that's probably a good thing and what percentage of players does that affect?
that's a really good point about "group think".... group think has screwed over a lot of organizations where the membership is much smarter and better educated than the average NHLer (happens within engineering teams a lot actually).... good points
Thanks, I can't take credit. Its well established in the literature.
Unfortunately while much is known and substantiated about group behavior we live in a world where that knowledge is seldom utilized for the good. But we see instances where such rhetorical anger is used for maladaptive, manipulative reasons all the time.
I've been reading that the players are complaining about the thread-count for hotel beds...is that true?
Haven't heard anything but I'd assume so although assuming the hotels they stay at I don't know why the hotels wouldn't already use premium sheets and blankets/duvets.
I don't think the floor should be abolished, but lowered a bit.
The problem with the floor is they made it a fixed number ($16M) lower than the cap. Coming out of the last lockout, that meant a range from $23M to $39M. That meant over 41% variance from floor to cap. But now with the cap at $70M, that's only a variance of 22%.
Why not make it a percentage - say 40%? So:
Cap $70M, Floor $42M
Cap $65M, Floor $39M
Cap $60M, Floor $36M
Might impact competitive balance a bit, but would at least provide an environment for the majority of teams to at least break even.
Why wouldn't there be a minimum salary if the cap floor was abolished? The min and maxes are all tied to the cap ceiling are they not?
If there is no CBA, salaries would be set by the market--i.e. by the logic of supply of demand. There is nothing to prevent Toronto Maple Leafs from offering a hypothetical Ryan Jones/Marty Reasoner 250K on a 1 year contract--if he does not have better offers, he won't have much choice but to accept it or seek employment overseas.
I don't think the floor should be abolished, but lowered a bit.
The problem with the floor is they made it a fixed number ($16M) lower than the cap. Coming out of the last lockout, that meant a range from $23M to $39M. That meant over 41% variance from floor to cap. But now with the cap at $70M, that's only a variance of 22%.
Why not make it a percentage - say 40%? So:
Cap $70M, Floor $42M
Cap $65M, Floor $39M
Cap $60M, Floor $36M
Might impact competitive balance a bit, but would at least provide an environment for the majority of teams to at least break even.
Problem is that goes 100% against what the cap was about in the first place. A way to have an even playing field. Having a 40% variance is just going to go back to pre-lockout where you had the rich teams and the poor teams.
Although there really is no solution to the problem with a 30 team NHL.
Problem is that goes 100% against what the cap was about in the first place. A way to have an even playing field. Having a 40% variance is just going to go back to pre-lockout where you had the rich teams and the poor teams.
Although there really is no solution to the problem with a 30 team NHL.
There is always a good middle ground. I personally think 30% would work perfectly. 20% kills low spending teams, and causes them to overpay free agents purely to hit the floor, where 40% doesn't have enough parity. 30% creates solid parity, while also giving a bit more flexibility to teams who need to spend less.
I think the NHLPA's idea to keep the cap floor as it is while raising the ceiling to $65 m is a great idea the nhl won't like it becaus it creates less parity and a competitive imbalance but really come on we're talking about $5 m more that's not even a full horcoff seriously though adding five more million the the cap won't result in an uncompetitive league it could potentially become slightly less competitive but smaller teams will still have an opportunity to win in my opinion. Its going to come down to the wire they seem to be close to me, but there is still a bit of giving and taking that needs to happen. The mediator has been back and forth with the two sides today , nothing planned yet but there is a chance the sides meet together tonight. Also i think the nhlpa overreacted to the hrr change the nhl tried to sneak in, its an issue that has been resolved already and if anything pa lawyers should have caught it earlier.
Off-topic:
This is my 1000th post, a small number compared to some posters but i was surprised its been that many already. I really enjoy my time here its hard to explain why this place is so addictive, it has a great community feel to it particularly the oilers board , i rarely venture out to the main board probably more then 90% of my posts have been here. i really do like it here hopefully this is the first of many thousand posts for me.
Way back at the beginnings of these CBA negotiations (we're talking several months ago now so things have likely changed).... the NHL wanted the cap "floor to ceiling spread" reduced from 16 million to 12 million so you could see that the NHL wanted/wants even more parity in the system... not less.
At a cap ceiling level of $60 million... a $12 million spread from floor to ceiling would be just a 20% variance.
I think that's about right. Unless they have some very solid and effective revenue sharing that 20% level is what's needed.
From my viewpoint the only way NHL hockey can survive (and grow) is if all the teams are relatively equal which means they need extreme parity. Hockey simply isn't an inherently popular game in the American markets.
Certainly it's not popular enough in the US markets that you could fill rinks with 16000+ fans to watch mediocre teams play. They NEED winners down there... or at least teams with the possibility to contend.
I'm sure the NHL is well aware of that as well.
Atlanta was toast... Phoenix is doomed... and teams like Florida, Columbus, Nashville and other small markets will soon be finished as well.
They can't have some teams spending 45-50 million and others spending 70 million. Too much of a spread that kills parity and turns all the fairweather fans away. All that's soon left is 3000 diehards mourning the loss of their "never a real contender" franchise.
seriously though adding five more million the the cap won't result in an uncompetitive league it could potentially become slightly less competitive but smaller teams will still have an opportunity to win in my opinion. Its going to come down to the wire they seem to be close to me, but there is still a bit of giving and taking that needs to happen. The mediator has been back and forth with the two sides today , nothing planned yet but there is a chance the sides meet together tonight. Also i think the nhlpa overreacted to the hrr change the nhl tried to sneak in, its an issue that has been resolved already and if anything pa lawyers should have caught it earlier. 
