The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
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.
I believe the history of the system used by the most successful professional sports franchise in North America is a little more than "fine and dandy" but whatever. And of course every league is driven by the big market teams. I am sure Major League Baseball would prefer a Dodgers Yankees World Series every other year but no matter how much money those team spend every year it doesn't guarantee it.
Why should the income generated from fans in Toronto or Detroit go to pay for decrepit franchises with crumby fan bases? What do the money making teams get out of this other than a league to play in? When it was suggested the money making teams could go over the cap by the amount they contribute to revenue sharing, this made sense but now it appears a percentage of every ticket sold goes to subsidize Gary's version of Robinhood's mission.
Fans will figure this out and turn on their own teams as no one will tolerate subsidizing teams to eliminate your team in the playoffs.
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.
Haha, and I shall call this magical place imagination land.
I believe the history of the system used by the most successful professional sports franchise in North America is a little more than "fine and dandy" but whatever. And of course every league is driven by the big market teams. I am sure Major League Baseball would prefer a Dodgers Yankees World Series every other year but no matter how much money those team spend every year it doesn't guarantee it.
My point is even in the regular season MLB shows only the big teams. So do the other 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Quackenbush
Why should the income generated from fans in Toronto or Detroit go to pay for decrepit franchises with crumby fan bases? What do the money making teams get out of this other than a league to play in? When it was suggested the money making teams could go over the cap by they amount they contribute to revenue sharing this made sense but now it appears a percentage of every ticket sold goes to subsidize Gary's version of Robinhood's mission.
Fans will figure this out and turn on their own teams as no one will tolerate subsidizing teams to eliminate your team in the playoffs.
Because we have to maintain a fake facade of being a major sport.
Haha, and I shall call this magical place imagination land.
With all due respect where has anyone supported the 20 team concept. And even if that was the case if the cap floor was dropped would it matter how many teams existed if everyone made money????
I believe the history of the system used by the most successful professional sports franchise in North America is a little more than "fine and dandy" but whatever. And of course every league is driven by the big market teams. I am sure Major League Baseball would prefer a Dodgers Yankees World Series every other year but no matter how much money those team spend every year it doesn't guarantee it.
Is the system the reason the league is so popular or the legions of fans that have teams have built through great success? The Cowboys are more popular than hockey, is that because their fans were given a salary cap?
Is the system the reason the league is so popular or the legions of fans that have teams have built through great success? The Cowboys are more popular than hockey, is that because their fans were given a salary cap?
The NFL has all those goodies and STILL a million blackous Scurr...
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.
Green Bay was a big market?
Oakland was a big market?
Kansas City was a big market?
Minneapolis was a big market?
Miami was a big market?
Pittsburgh was a big market?
Just asking because teams from these cities were in the playoffs and Super Bowl quite often in the late '60s and early '70s. In fact a team from New York appeared in only one of the first 20 Super Bowls, and that was the Jets in Super Bowl III.
A team from Los Angeles appeared in just two of the first 20 Super Bowls and a team from Chicago in just one.
The Giants and Jets were down right awful in many of those years, yet the NFL grew and grew. How did they manage that without championship teams in "big markets"?
I think folks that live in these areas have an over developed sense of self-importance and entitlement.
Just asking because teams from these cities were in the playoffs and Super Bowl quite often in the late '60s and early '70s. In fact a team from New York appeared in only one of the first 20 Super Bowls, and that was the Jets in Super Bowl III.
A team from Los Angeles appeared in just two of the first 20 Super Bowls and a team from Chicago in just one.
The Giants and Jets were down right awful in many of those years, yet the NFL grew and grew. How did they manage that without championship teams in "big markets"?
I think folks that live in these areas have an over developed sense of self-importance and entitlement.
How popular was football in the 60's and 70's?
The packers have built a very large following for a small market team because of their great success, not because they got a salary cap.
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
I guess it much just be a mistake when TNT and ESPN show small market teams on national TV during the regular season then huh?
If you support an uncapped league then you support a league of 10-15 teams because there is no way the small market teams could survive in the NHL without it.
Just asking because teams from these cities were in the playoffs and Super Bowl quite often in the late '60s and early '70s. In fact a team from New York appeared in only one of the first 20 Super Bowls, and that was the Jets in Super Bowl III.
A team from Los Angeles appeared in just two of the first 20 Super Bowls and a team from Chicago in just one.
The Giants and Jets were down right awful in many of those years, yet the NFL grew and grew. How did they manage that without championship teams in "big markets"?
I think folks that live in these areas have an over developed sense of self-importance and entitlement.
Why the red herring? NFL wasn't number 1 then. And Oakland is a big market, there's 8 million people in the Bay Area. Miami has 5.7 million. Minneapolis 4 million. Come on man.
I hope you include LA in "I think folks that live in these areas have an over developed sense of self-importance and entitlement." Because that is where that statement was born.
I guess it much just be a mistake when TNT and ESPN show small market teams on national TV during the regular season then huh?
If you support an uncapped league then you support a league of 10-15 teams because there is no way the small market teams could survive in the NHL without it.
Like who, OKC? They have Durant and Westbrook. I just said "unless you have a star." You didn't read my post. I support a soft cap just like the NBA has.
The MLB has no cap, but here comes the they have more fans argument.
In English Football, the money making teams tired of propping up the first division of the likes of wiggan and luton town etc and created the Premier League. They still compete against the lesser teams in Cup competitions. I can see the NHL going to this system.
The packers have built a very large following for a small market team because of their great success, not because they got a salary cap.
There was no need for a cap in the '60s and '70s, because there were no free agents. Football was extremely popular in the late '60s and early '70s.
It has been mentioned here that as soon as the Super Bowl started to be played that the NFL's popularity surged until it became the #1 sport in America. Again, how did that happen without big market teams dominating the sport?
That was one of your contentions, right? That a sport can't become popular unless the big market teams are winning championships, was it not?
Just admit you were wrong on that point. It's obvious why you want it to be true, but it just isn't.
I guess it much just be a mistake when TNT and ESPN show small market teams on national TV during the regular season then huh?
If you support an uncapped league then you support a league of 10-15 teams because there is no way the small market teams could survive in the NHL without it.
There are ways to even the playing field between big and small market teams without a salary cap.
There are ways to even the playing field between big and small market teams without a salary cap.
Such as?
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
That was one of your contentions, right? That a sport can't become popular unless the big market teams are winning championships, was it not?
No, it wasn't. I said that big market teams winning championships is what drives the popularity of any league. It's not debatable. Big markets touch more people and give the league more exposure. Fact.
There was no need for a cap in the '60s and '70s, because there were no free agents. Football was extremely popular in the late '60s and early '70s.
It has been mentioned here that as soon as the Super Bowl started to be played that the NFL's popularity surged until it became the #1 sport in America. Again, how did that happen without big market teams dominating the sport?
That was one of your contentions, right? That a sport can't become popular unless the big market teams are winning championships, was it not?
Just admit you were wrong on that point. It's obvious why you want it to be true, but it just isn't.
Because of the star on the small market teams. You're not a sports fan at all man.
There was 16 blackouts in 256 NFL regular season games this year. No need to let facts get in the way of a post.
16? Way too many for a league with parity. I supposed you support your man Jacobs and the Bruins being crappy all those years was because of no cap right? It was because he was a crappy owner and the fact you won won't change that
Unless they're sharing almost all of it, the big teams still have a massive advantage, and that doesn't really do much. You need the salary cap to prevent the big markets from buying all the talent. Even if those teams have to share 25% of their revenue, Toronto and New York still have 150m+ to set the market place.
Revenue sharing works in the MLB because the Red Sox, Yankees, and Dodgers bring in more than a billion dollars in combined revenue a year. The Leafs, Rangers, and Canadians bring in about 550 million.
Last edited by Killion: 01-05-2013 at 05:35 PM.
Reason: qtd del...
