HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Are the big market teams the losers here?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-05-2013, 01:27 PM
  #176
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
The NFL has more parity than any league in North America. You point out the TV deal, yet overlook why they got it. One of the reasons is that parity.
You must be young. The NFL has been built on the back of dynasty's.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 01:28 PM
  #177
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sour Shoes View Post
is this where i say touche'? i'm already aware that big market fans don't give a **** about the smaller markets. which is why nobody should care if the big market teams are "the losers" during this lockout.
Except that the big market teams are the ones bringing in revenue. Tearing them down will further destroy the health of the league in general. It is already happening. This will only increase the small market problems not help them.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 01:30 PM
  #178
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
You must be young. The NFL has been built on the back of dynasty's.
Exactly.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 01:39 PM
  #179
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 29,390
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
Here's the issue, the same teams losing money 8 years ago are the same teams losing money today. They got their cap and revenue sharing, yet it didn't help.

It it healthy to keep catering to these teams that seem like they can never make a profit no matter what deal is signed?

It does seem like the broke teams are calling the shots more in the NHl which I find odd. That happens in no other sport.
According to the press, 16-18 teams are claim to be losing money. So, I disagree that this lockout is being driven by 8 teams.

It's more likely that there are only 8 or so teams raking in healthy profits and those teams are pushing Bettman to make concessions, get the season started.

CREW99AW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 01:52 PM
  #180
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
You must be young. The NFL has been built on the back of dynasty's.
This would be a valid point if you completely ignore the fact that until 1993 the NFL had no free agency; NFL teams that drafted well built dynasties and players had very little rights. The Packers of the 1960’s, Steelers and Cowboys of the 1970’s, the 49ers and Giants of the 1980’s, and even the Cowboys of the early 1990’s all operated in a system without free agency.

I mean if you want to get rid of the cap and free agency in the NHL that may work to keep spending down while also allowing teams to build “dynasties” but that’s going to be a pretty tough sell the PA (not to mention it's now illegal based on antitrust laws, see the NFL player lawsuit of 1992).

I should also point out that the NFL adopted a cap system a year after the courts awarded NFL players free agency.


Last edited by du5566*: 01-05-2013 at 01:59 PM.
du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 01:59 PM
  #181
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
This would be a valid point if you completely ignore the fact that until 1993 the NFL had no free agency; NFL teams that drafted well built dynasties and players had very little rights. The Packers of the 1960ís, Steelers and Cowboys of the 1970ís, the 49ers and Giants of the 1980ís, and even the Cowboys of the early 1990ís all operated in a system without real free agency.

I mean if you want to get rid of the cap and free agency in the NHL that may work to keep spending down while also allowing teams to build ďdynastiesĒ but thatís going to be a pretty tough sell the PA.

I should also point out that the NFL adopted a cap system a year after the courts awarded NFL players free agency.
And there in lays the rub. The real issue that the "anti-parity" posters have (even if they don't realize it) is with free-agency not the cap. The problem is free-agency isn't going anywhere: The courts have made THAT clear.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:05 PM
  #182
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
And there in lays the rub. The real issue that the "anti-parity" posters have (even if they don't realize it) is with free-agency not the cap. The problem is free-agency isn't going anywhere: The courts have made THAT clear.
Free-agency + no salary cap + the need for big markets to field championship teams = player salaries that do not make sense for the league as a whole.

I guess what frustrates me is people look back on the uncapped era’s in pro sports with blissful ignorance completely ignoring all of the issues (court cases, lockouts, player strikes) that have lead professional sports to an era of free agency and salary caps.


Last edited by du5566*: 01-05-2013 at 02:11 PM.
du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:16 PM
  #183
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
The NFL has more parity than any league in North America. You point out the TV deal, yet overlook why they got it. One of the reasons is that parity.
That has nothing to do with it. There actually was less parity when they first got those big tv deals.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:26 PM
  #184
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
That has nothing to do with it. There actually was less parity when they first got those big tv deals.
The NFL just signed new TV deals last year, the contracts increased 60%, and starting in 2014 the NFL will get nearly 5 billion dollars a year from TV revenue.

In the 18 years since the NFL adopted free agency and a salary cap there have been 11 different teams to win a Super Bowl.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:31 PM
  #185
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
The NFL just signed new TV deals last year, the contracts increased 60%, and starting in 2014 the NFL will get nearly 5 billion dollars a year from TV revenue.

In the 18 years since the NFL adopted free agency and a salary cap there have been 11 different teams to win a Super Bowl.
You honestly think that's the reason? They've been getting massive tv deals for a very long time.

It's just a great sport to gamble on, and it's short season makes every game so important.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:41 PM
  #186
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
You honestly think that's the reason? They've been getting massive tv deals for a very long time.

It's just a great sport to gamble on, and it's short season makes every game so important.
I don't think it's the only reason; the NFL’s popularity over the past 30 years cannot be ignored, but it's a factor. The reality is the NFL was headed in the wrong direction in the mid 1980's leading up to the player strike of 1987. NFL teams were reporting losses and a lot of NFL franchises were struggling despite the sport’s popularity. The players fought for and received free agency, the NFL adopted a salary cap, and the league has never been healthier. People like to pretend like the cap and free agency had nothing with the NFL’s success because the league is wildly popular in the US. The reality is the league was hurting, the cap helped offset player free agency, and the league is now more profitable than ever.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:52 PM
  #187
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
The NFL just signed new TV deals last year, the contracts increased 60%, and starting in 2014 the NFL will get nearly 5 billion dollars a year from TV revenue.

In the 18 years since the NFL adopted free agency and a salary cap there have been 11 different teams to win a Super Bowl.
And 19 that haven't.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:54 PM
  #188
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
I don't think it's the only reason; the NFLís popularity over the past 30 years cannot be ignored, but it's a factor. The reality is the NFL was headed in the wrong direction in the mid 1980's leading up to the player strike of 1987. NFL teams were reporting losses and a lot of NFL franchises were struggling despite the sportís popularity. The players fought for and received free agency, the NFL adopted a salary cap, and the league has never been healthier. People like to pretend like the cap and free agency had nothing with the NFLís success because the league is wildly popular in the US. The reality is the league was hurting, the cap helped offset player free agency, and the league is now more profitable than ever.
Hmmm....I wonder why that recipe hasn't worked in the NHL?

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 03:03 PM
  #189
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
The NFL just signed new TV deals last year, the contracts increased 60%, and starting in 2014 the NFL will get nearly 5 billion dollars a year from TV revenue.

In the 18 years since the NFL adopted free agency and a salary cap there have been 11 different teams to win a Super Bowl.
In the 18 years PRIOR to the salary cap, 10 different teams won the Stanley Cup and 21 different teams played in the finals.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 03:10 PM
  #190
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Hmmm....I wonder why that recipe hasn't worked in the NHL?
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
And 19 that haven't.
To be honest the recipe hasn't worked for the NHL because the players have dominated in CBA negotiations over the past 25 years and the leadership amongst the NHL owners is a joke. Combine that with shaky revenue, TV numbers, and overall league wide support and you have a recipe for disaster or 2 work stoppages in 6 years.

I am not going to debate the cap with you again though; you have made it clear that you believe the league was and is better off without a cap and I stand by my opinion [Mod]; your undying love and passion for the big market team you cheer for. Regardless the NHL will never get rid of the cap and I would argue that any professional sport league without one is a dinosaur due to the modern day free agency rules.


Last edited by Killion: 01-05-2013 at 04:15 PM. Reason: not reqd...
du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 03:16 PM
  #191
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
In the 18 years since the NFL adopted free agency and a salary cap there have been 11 different teams to win a Super Bowl.
Those are basically the same numbers as pre-cap NHL and for MLB.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 03:16 PM
  #192
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
In the 18 years PRIOR to the salary cap, 10 different teams won the Stanley Cup and 21 different teams played in the finals.
When did free agency start in the NHL?

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 03:21 PM
  #193
StoneColdFlower*
El Sid
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
Actually some leagues require you to earn a spot.

No "anybody behaving in the best interests for growing the league and the game" does not "deserve a seat at the table". You prove you belong first before I give you a team at the big table.
Yes, but promotion and relegation is a completely different issue that is irrelevant to the distribution of gross revenues among constituents of a single-tier professional sports league like the nhl, and the two should not be conflated. When the master strategy is to grow the game of hockey in emerging markets, it is counterproductive to the growth of these markets to not provide every market with the tools that it needs to offer the ownership a guaranteed return and to offer potential fans both stability and the possibility of their team contending on a reasonable basis so long as they do their part to grow the game in their media market and act in good faith to provide a competent level of financial stewardship and hockey management. Hence my support for a comprehensive and universal revenue sharing.

StoneColdFlower* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 03:57 PM
  #194
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
This would be a valid point if you completely ignore the fact that until 1993 the NFL had no free agency; NFL teams that drafted well built dynasties and players had very little rights. The Packers of the 1960ís, Steelers and Cowboys of the 1970ís, the 49ers and Giants of the 1980ís, and even the Cowboys of the early 1990ís all operated in a system without free agency.

I mean if you want to get rid of the cap and free agency in the NHL that may work to keep spending down while also allowing teams to build ďdynastiesĒ but thatís going to be a pretty tough sell the PA (not to mention it's now illegal based on antitrust laws, see the NFL player lawsuit of 1992).

I should also point out that the NFL adopted a cap system a year after the courts awarded NFL players free agency.
I think it's funny that people have ingnored this post.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 05:18 PM
  #195
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sour Shoes View Post
big market teams are never the losers. their competitive advantage will likely shrink (much like the last cba), but i can't find it within myself to feel sorry for them. especially after the weber poison pill. some big market teams & fans can't stomach a level playing field... not my problem. no, i do not feel big market fans are entitled to a better product because of population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
They're entitled to a better product because they pay more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Even a league with absolute central control, and a tiny salary cap (MLS) understands the inherent value in making money through the success of their large markets. They understand that "parity" is not the best route to success and growth.

It helps, but the fact remains that success in places like New York, LA or Chicago is simply more important to the league than success in Columbus, Salt Lake or San Jose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
I agree. And Bettman has a conflict of interest as he's the one who brought in some of these struggling franchises.

He's so proud of no teams moving. Why? The NFL and NBA (Two more successful leagues) seem to have no issue with it.

It's a very flawed economic theory he has going. There are teams that won't make money no matter what deal is signed. Meanwhile, the teams giving money to the poor ones aren't making any with no season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sour Shoes View Post
because of the supply/demand effect of a larger population... again, not my problem. there are small market fans that are dumb enough to support a league with haves & have nots (see - anyone who ever has paid a dime to watch a ball game at pnc park). i'm just saying i, and hopefully most others, wouldn't support such a league. for any toronto fans that hate the cap... are you jays fans?? did you enjoy the last 20 years sharing a division with the yankees and red sox? (toronto's current year spending spree notwithstanding)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
I think no cap has helped the Blue Jays this year. They have a big advantage over the Leafs right now in spending.

And larger population has little to do with it. Phoenix has a huge/growing population.

I don't see any lack of parity in the NHL. Every team has an equal chance. I think people have issues with the cap coming down now more than the cap itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Enjoy your 12 team league. The NHL is driven by gate revenues. People will not attend games if their team has no chance of winning, ever.

If this is what you want, that's fine. I doubt very much that the NHLPA will sign off on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
Not my problem.

See how that works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sour Shoes View Post
is this where i say touche'? i'm already aware that big market fans don't give a **** about the smaller markets. which is why nobody should care if the big market teams are "the losers" during this lockout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Pirates fans are so unbelievably salty.

News flash! The NL Central has been won by four different teams in the last five years.

If you think the economics of baseball is the reason they Pirates are so consistently terrible you are just looking for an excuse.

Also, PNC Park is a shrine. I don't care how bad the team is that place is always worth a visit.

And yes, I am a Jays fan, and I love sharing a division with the Yankees and Red Sox. And I can tell you unequivocally that the Blue Jays ownership has LOVED having them in the division. When those big spenders visit town, those are the Jays' (and every other team in baseball's) best gates of the season.

And you cant say "current year spending spree notwithstanding". The current spending spree is an example of exactly how a "small" (and I use that term loosely because the Jays' owners are super rich) market teams build through the draft, and gradually, but most importantly, financially responsibly, build themselves to a level where they are in a position to spend money.

Mandating limits and floors and percentages to be spent is horribly misguided and static response to economic and performance factors that are always changing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
It will never happen.

See how that works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahagga73 View Post
You got a lot to look forward too this year then. Jays fans have suffered lately, but management has you guys in position to get maybe a 3rd WS title. Us White Sox fans just hope we finally make the playoffs again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I am psyched. Anthopolous built through the draft and trades, and when the opportunity presented itself to compliment his young core with high priced, proven talent, he jumped on it.

Instead of dismantling his young core because of salary constraints, he is able to add to it and make a serious run at the playoffs.

Amazing the things you can do when you aren't burdened by a ridiculously over complicated talent cap. Even perennial losers, in a "non-traditional" market, competing with the biggest payrolls in sport, can turn it around through sound management and prudent negotiating

But no, a salary cap would be much more simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
Actually some leagues require you to earn a spot.

No "anybody behaving in the best interests for growing the league and the game" does not "deserve a seat at the table". You prove you belong first before I give you a team at the big table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
In the 18 years PRIOR to the salary cap, 10 different teams won the Stanley Cup and 21 different teams played in the finals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
To be honest the recipe hasn't worked for the NHL because the players have dominated in CBA negotiations over the past 25 years and the leadership amongst the NHL owners is a joke. Combine that with shaky revenue, TV numbers, and overall league wide support and you have a recipe for disaster or 2 work stoppages in 6 years.

I am not going to debate the cap with you again though; you have made it clear that you believe the league was and is better off without a cap and I stand by my opinion [Mod]; your undying love and passion for the big market team you cheer for. Regardless the NHL will never get rid of the cap and I would argue that any professional sport league without one is a dinosaur due to the modern day free agency rules.

Listen up.


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.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 05:33 PM
  #196
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 16,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Listen up.


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.
Listen up. You believe this because you live somewhere in the Eastern Time Zone.

Living in California, I thank God that people from New York think Florida is so awesome.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 05:45 PM
  #197
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Listen up.

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 05:54 PM.
du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 05:51 PM
  #198
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
This would be a valid point if you completely ignore the fact that until 1993 the NFL had no free agency; NFL teams that drafted well built dynasties and players had very little rights. The Packers of the 1960’s, Steelers and Cowboys of the 1970’s, the 49ers and Giants of the 1980’s, and even the Cowboys of the early 1990’s all operated in a system without free agency.

I mean if you want to get rid of the cap and free agency in the NHL that may work to keep spending down while also allowing teams to build “dynasties” but that’s going to be a pretty tough sell the PA (not to mention it's now illegal based on antitrust laws, see the NFL player lawsuit of 1992).

I should also point out that the NFL adopted a cap system a year after the courts awarded NFL players free agency.
This is all fine and dandy but don't act like the league has been built on parity. Big market teams winning is what drives every league.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 05:58 PM
  #199
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
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"?
I haven't seen anyone suggest that it should come at the expense of 20 teams. What's best for the league is a 30 team league where every team feels like they have a chance to win but only big markets really do.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 06:00 PM
  #200
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Listen up. You believe this because you live somewhere in the Eastern Time Zone.

Living in California, I thank God that people from New York think Florida is so awesome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
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"?
I have a cousin at CBS Studios in NYC. This is straight from the horse mouth. I'm not lying at all. KINGS17 tell me why there are no west coast teams on NBC's schedule?? Exactly. All the cap has done is make all the teams the same.

Du5656 where have a supported a 20 team league? You can have everything the NHL has now and it won't matter because at the end of the day people won't pay to watch small market teams in big tournaments. The NBA does the same thing and so does the MLB, only one has a cap. The Networks almost never promote the 30 teams concept, that's not their job that's the NHL, and as a result for the regular season you get your team, my team(NYR) and the other big markets. No one on HFBOARDS can admit that people would rather watch big then small anytime other than the NFL. Unless you get a generational star (Like Crosby, Like Malkin, like LeBron) your team is not on national TV 5 teams or 40 teams

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.