HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Odds that there is a season this year

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2004, 09:53 PM
  #1
Laches
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,175
vCash: 500
Odds that there is a season this year

Just out of curiousity, if you had to put a number on it, what do you think the chances are that there would be a season this year. I wish I could be more optimistic, but I'd say that there's about a 10% chance that something will get done in time for a 2005 season.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sick of this. I want hockey. I want NHL2Night. I want to watch hockey highlights on Sportscenter in the morning.

Out here, they're showing "Minnesota Hockey Classics" during some of the times where there would have been Wild games. I watched a bit of the '81 finals between the Isles and North Stars (man could Trottier play) and some of the Stars first trip back to Minnesota to play the Wild, it was sad and strange to see Lyashenko out there in that game.

Laches is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 09:57 PM
  #2
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
i say 25% chance they play. We'll find out for sure tomorrow if they wont play. If things go well tomrrow, i say there is a 40% chance they play.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 10:13 PM
  #3
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
i'm gonna say 30% chance they play and 70% they don't.

xander is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 10:19 PM
  #4
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
20 / 80

NYRangers is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 10:24 PM
  #5
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 30,333
vCash: 500
15% they play, 85% they wont.

If there is ANY sort of progress made tomrrow though I will swap those numbers to 85% they will play, 15% they wont. But im highly doubting anything will work tomorow.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 10:24 PM
  #6
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Do i hear 10? 10 anyone 10?? lol

Balej20* is offline  
Old
12-08-2004, 11:29 PM
  #7
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
i'm gonna be optimistic and say 0% :lol

NYR469 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:42 AM
  #8
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,170
vCash: 500
Not much of one

I would say less than 1%. An ESPN article a little while back, said that even if the NHLPA was to walk in and hand over to Bettman every single one of his demands, there would still be a group of owners that would vote to cancel the season.
The bigger problem is Bettman. I truly think (and have from the very beginning) that he really has no interest in having a season. It seems that he is more interested in canceling a season (in an effort to prove his strength) than having one.
Think of it this way, Bettman and Goodenow are supposed to meet today. If the players offer a 10% rollback in salaries and a luxury tax between $40-45m, what do you think happens? I believe that instead of taking it as a platform from which to begin negotiations, Bettman just chants the salary cap mantra and outright rejects the offer.
Chances of a season? Less than 1% becuase Bettman intended to cancel this season as far back as 2 years ago.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:18 AM
  #9
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
There's a slim chance...

but there's still a chance (until it's officially cancelled that is).

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:34 AM
  #10
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I would say less than 1%. An ESPN article a little while back, said that even if the NHLPA was to walk in and hand over to Bettman every single one of his demands, there would still be a group of owners that would vote to cancel the season..
Bettman's biggest demand is cost-certainty and several variations of that were presented to the NHLPA. It's great the NHLPA has an offer today but who pays that luxury tax? Owners. Who still has to compete for players in an open market? Owners. This system does not work in baseball, there is significant team disparity and a lack of competitive balance overall.

Only difference is baseball makes money and has revenue sharing, hockey does not.

An eight to ten percent giveback solves little in a system where players under the league automatically get a ten percent qualifying offer.

Why has the NHLPA agreed to a rookie cap and is even willing to lower this by a significant number but will not accept it for veterans? A cap is acceptable to the NHLPA, let's seem them compromise that and I'm sure the league will make sure if the product is profitable the players will benefit with good contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Think of it this way, Bettman and Goodenow are supposed to meet today. If the players offer a 10% rollback in salaries and a luxury tax between $40-45m, what do you think happens? I believe that instead of taking it as a platform from which to begin negotiations, Bettman just chants the salary cap mantra and outright rejects the offer.
And why shouldn't Bettman continue to reject a free market system that has failed for this league.

Why is this a platform to begin negotiation when it's exactly what the
NHLPA wants. I'm sure the NHLPA will be happy to give the league practically anything they want to keep a free market system. It does not mean it's a good deal for this business.

They can offer a lot of things to help the league save money but clearly they want no part of cost-certainty. Let's see how the NHLPA feels about a counter-offer with
cost-certainty where the players still can make a great wage but will have less competition for offers because team managements will have to be smarter and pick their spots. The concept of building a team.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:56 AM
  #11
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Bettman's biggest demand is cost-certainty and several variations of that were presented to the NHLPA.
Presenting the same cap over and over agan is hardly an example of variation.

"It's great the NHLPA has an offer today but who pays that luxury tax? Owners. Who still has to compete for players in an open market? Owners. This system does not work in baseball, there is significant team disparity and a lack of competitive balance overall. "

The system DOES work in baseball. Or at least it works for those owners who choose to take the money and reinvest it in their teams instead of just pocketing it. Revenue sharing does much more to solve the real problems than a cap. The cap is nothing but a palty effort by Bettman to cover up all of the economic blunders that overexpansion (his idea) has wrought.

"A cap is acceptable to the NHLPA, let's seem them compromise that and I'm sure the league will make sure if the product is profitable the players will benefit with good contracts.

A hardcap is actually not acceptable to the NHLPA. Having a rookie cap and accepting an overall cap are 2 entirely different things. You want the product to be profitable? Then ax the teams that have no chance at ever being profitable. Having every team profitable is just not realistic. Not while the Carolinas, Floridas, & Tampas of the world are running around.

"And why shouldn't Bettman continue to reject a free market system that has failed for this league."

What has failed the league is not the free-market system. What has failed the league is the lack of a drag. That does not have to be a cap. It COULD be a luxury tax. The NBA, a league Bettman loves to bring up as an example, does not have a hard cap. Only the NFL does.
And let's not forget Bettman's reason for such a low cap....the amount of the economic loss by the league. The amount of the loss is highly debatable.

"It does not mean it's a good deal for this business."

Nor does a cap make a good deal for the overall league.

"The concept of building a team"

Since when is the concept of building a team revolve solely around a hard cap?

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:58 AM
  #12
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,135
vCash: 500
Sure there's a chance.

About the same as the Giants winning the Super Bowl this year.

klingsor is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:01 AM
  #13
JR#9*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
All a cap is going to do is create ARTIFICAL parity...and will cause good teams to disband after achieving any significant success as you see in the NFL.

A cap shouldn't and can't be fairly instituted without the only thing that makes it work...a HUGE CENTRAL REVENUE SOURCE that can only come with a major TV deal that the NHL will never get.

The real problem is Bettmen and the owners being greedy for entry fees and increasing the size of the league by 1/3 in just 1 F'in decade!!!

Too many teams, unhealthy one's at that who can't and never will support the markets they are in properly.

Just think how much the talent pool would rise had they only added a much more reasonable 3 teams instead of 10.

Fold 6 teams and bring the skill level back up to the point where talent is back in the spotlight as the primary draw instead of the "let all teams be as good as any other one and everybody play generic, no skill, no entertainment hockey" that we see today and that you and the owners are pushing for in the future.

If there could be one bright spot in all of this it would only come from the possibility of contration to right the wrongs of Bettman and the owners of the '90's

JR#9* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:34 AM
  #14
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Isles..

if owners are against paying a tax, then perhaps they shouldn't go above the tax threshold at which point they'd pay the tax.

Baseball and hockey are different sports in different situations, thus it's tough to compare the two (the tax system you say doesn't work because there still isn't parity - in hockey, without a tax system, there is some sort of a parity (Tampa and Calgary did just play in the finals a season after Anaheim made it, as well as in a season Nashville made it)). And football and hockey are two totally different animals too, and thus cannot be compared. What needs to be done is issues need to be outlined and addressed. To me the issue is teams, let's call them the Oilers, can't keep its players and cannot compete for UFAs, without sustaining losses that would jeopardize its viability. League losses aren't a problem for me as they stem mostly from mismanagement by those owners (The Rangers) who also benefit in other ways that make it worthwhile to have the Rangers that is not seen on the Rangers' stand-along P&L. Will a cap help the Oilers? Undoubtedly. Will it increase its revenues? Doubtful. Will a tax help the Oilers? I do believe so. Will it increase its revenues? Yes.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:42 AM
  #15
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
if owners are against paying a tax, then perhaps they shouldn't go above the tax threshold at which point they'd pay the tax.
That would make too much sense now wouldn't it !!

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:45 AM
  #16
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
This system does not work in baseball, there is significant team disparity and a lack of competitive balance overall.
first off there is NO parity or competitive balance problem in the nhl. if there was a problem similar to baseball then you could argue that it hasn't fixed the problem but since there is no problem in the first place in the nhl there is nothing to fix...

and people talk about parity and competitive balance like it is a good thing...in reality "parity" is just another term for 'mediocrity'...why is the objective to pull the top teams down to make sure everyone is equally crappy...

as far as the system not working in baseball that is completely not true...sure george steinbrenner screws up the system and spends over the limit but almost every other team stop spending before that limit and it HAS acted as a soft cap (and when steinbrenner goes over, he pays huge luxury taxes that go to the poorer teams)...gary bettman talks about the link between salaries and revenue and how the players get too much of the pie. well before mlb put in the luxury tax 67% of revenue was going to player salaries, today 55% of revenue goes to player salaries...so the system HAS worked and has lowered that % in the owners favor...if you consider that in the nhl there isn't 1 psycho owner spending double everyone else then you gotta figure that the impact on the nhl would be atleast the same.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:53 AM
  #17
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Presenting the same cap over and over agan is hardly an example of variation.
As opposed what the NHLPA is rumored to be offering, something where owners can pay more for the privilege of bidding against themselves for all the name talent in the sport?

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
The system DOES work in baseball. Or at least it works for those owners who choose to take the money and reinvest it in their teams instead of just pocketing it. Revenue sharing does much more to solve the real problems than a cap. The cap is nothing but a palty effort by Bettman to cover up all of the economic blunders that overexpansion (his idea) has wrought..
You mean the same reinvesting that has seen the Yankee payroll approach 200 million. This is not re-investing, it's spending more and more and driving up the market for everyone. The same trends have happened in the NHL over the last decade.

How does it work in baseball? Are you telling me Pittsburgh, Detroit, Kansas City, Cincinatti, Oakland and Milwaukee are better markets than they were in the 70's and early 80's? In order to be good markets they must spend so much they cannot sustain their business any longer so they forever rebuild and cannot keep their top talent when they reach their prime.

This is why Montreal is now gone. They had some of the best young talent in baseball, the free market picked that team apart a lot quicker than a league salary cap would have done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
A hardcap is actually not acceptable to the NHLPA. Having a rookie cap and accepting an overall cap are 2 entirely different things. You want the product to be profitable? Then ax the teams that have no chance at ever being profitable. Having every team profitable is just not realistic. Not while the Carolinas, Floridas, & Tampas of the world are running around...
They are not two different things at all. The NHLPA agreed to a cap on rookie salaries they can agree to do so for every single player. They threw one demographic of their NHLPA overboard to protect the veteran demographic. The NHLPA is rumored to lower the rookie cap by almost a third.

Tell me how the St.Louis Blues make more revenue from the Carolina Hurricanes folding when they fill the Saavis Center and lose 30-40 million and have been reported to lose this much for years before a work stoppage was even on the radar, should the league ax St.Louis and Los Angeles as you suggested with the Sharks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
That does not have to be a cap. It COULD be a luxury tax. The NBA, a league Bettman loves to bring up as an example, does not have a hard cap. Only the NFL does. And let's not forget Bettman's reason for such a low cap....the amount of the economic loss by the league. The amount of the loss is highly debatable. ...
And it does not have to be a luxury tax, it can also be a cap. Things do work both ways. Folks all over North America claim this business loses revenue, you can debate the losses but the fact is the NHLPA is the one making offers to giveback, this is not a shutdown because players are not making enough money.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:11 AM
  #18
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
if they have meeting tomorrow as well (friday), 80%, if it is only 1 day of meetings, than 15%

Nich is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:25 AM
  #19
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469
first off there is NO parity or competitive balance problem in the nhl. if there was a problem similar to baseball then you could argue that it hasn't fixed the problem but since there is no problem in the first place in the nhl there is nothing to fix....
You mean Colorado, Dallas, New Jersey (over 50 million) Detroit winning every cup since 1995 until this year is competitive balance? I disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469
and people talk about parity and competitive balance like it is a good thing...in reality "parity" is just another term for 'mediocrity'...why is the objective to pull the top teams down to make sure everyone is equally crappy.......
Only problem with that is every market outside of Toronto and every market in the United States is mediocre already maybe with the singular exception of Detroit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469
as far as the system not working in baseball that is completely not true...sure george steinbrenner screws up the system .......
That's kind of a contradiction. I'm sure baseball owners expected most of their partners to work within the guidelines set last time. Also baseball has revenue sharing, hockey is the only sport that does not. I would bet most of the owners would prefer Steinbrenner keep him luxury tax check (which comes to 2 million a team?) in exchange for a competitive team where ticket sales would easily make up any tax money from the one team over a cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469
well before mlb put in the luxury tax 67% of revenue was going to player salaries, today 55% of revenue goes to player salaries...so the system HAS worked and has lowered that % in the owners favor...if you consider that in the nhl there isn't 1 psycho owner spending double everyone else then you gotta figure that the impact on the nhl would be atleast the same.
Baseball does not have competitve balance. The Yankees essentially play a 162 game exhibition season today with rivalry games vs Boston that is not going to change anytime soon. As a former Yankee fan I will take the way it used to be when the season actually meant something. In hockey with a stoppage coming teams have cut back on spending, we do not know what they will do when a stoppage ends.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:44 AM
  #20
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
You mean Colorado, Dallas, New Jersey (over 50 million) Detroit winning every cup since 1995 until this year is competitive balance? I disagree.
I'm not getting sucked into all this again (don't have the time with my Civ Pro exam tomorrow), but I will say this. Good teams go in cycles. Colorado, Detroit, and New Jersey built a good core and they spent to maintain it, but that won't last forever. Colorado will suck again once Sakic, Forsberg, Foote, and Blake move on. As will Detroit once their core leaves, and ditto for Jersey. It's just how hockey works. Between 1976 and 1993 (18 years ), only five teams (Habs, Isles, Oilers, Flames, and Pens) won the Cup. Does that mean that there was a huge competitive imbalance that needed to be fixed back then?

Kodiak is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:45 AM
  #21
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
As opposed what the NHLPA is rumored to be offering, something where owners can pay more for the privilege of bidding against themselves for all the name talent in the sport?
Rumors are note reality. And if by bidding against themselves, you mean either a soft cap or luxury tax, then yes, both of them do far more to solve the league's problems than a hard cap (which actually does nothing but give the owners more of a bottom line) does.

"You mean the same reinvesting that has seen the Yankee payroll approach 200 million. This is not re-investing, it's spending more and more and driving up the market for everyone. The same trends have happened in the NHL over the last decade. "

The Yankees are the exception and not the rule. Not one owner complains when Steinbrenner sends $80m for the league to distribute.

"How does it work in baseball? Are you telling me Pittsburgh, Detroit, Kansas City, Cincinatti, Oakland and Milwaukee are better markets than they were in the 70's and early 80's? In order to be good markets they must spend so much they cannot sustain their business any longer so they forever rebuild and cannot keep their top talent when they reach their prime. "

Detroit, in case you have not noticed, has gotten much better over the last several years. And, since they actually managed to put fannies in the seats, they are spending more this year. And thus will be more competitive. Thus more profitable. Thus be able to compete more and mre. As for Oakland, only a miracle Jeter play prevented them from winning the 'Series one year. Beane's "moneyball" philsophy is as much of a hinderance as anything else. Little know fact, but Milwaukee has had more profits than people realize. Selig just pocketed most of it. As for Pitt & KC, not every friggin' team within a league can be profitable.

"This is why Montreal is now gone. "

That is not true at all. Montreal is gone becuase the fans NEVER forgave them about the strike and NEVER returned. That is what killed baseball in Montreal.

"They had some of the best young talent in baseball"

Yes, they did. And then they had to trade it away becuase the fans were not coming and thus, no cash was coming in. When they were filling seats, they were very good. What happened in Montreal was the result of canceling a season when they were the best team in the National League. The same thing that will happen this time to some teams in the NHL.

"The NHLPA agreed to a cap on rookie salaries they can agree to do so for every single player"

Rookie salary structures are different from veterans in every other sport. That is just the way it is. Not in the NFL nor the NBA do the rookies make out like veterans do. Not fair, but a way of life. They make their money in a few years.

"Tell me how the St.Louis Blues make more revenue from the Carolina Hurricanes folding when they fill the Saavis Center and lose 30-40 million and have been reported to lose this much for years before a work stoppage was even on the radar, should the league ax St.Louis and Los Angeles as you suggested with the Sharks? "

Teams like the Blues and Rangers loose money due to mismanagement. And actuall, again, here is where we differ. You believe what Bettman is saying. I have no faith whatsoever in the league's purported loss. I believe the actual loss number to be much lower. So to me, the Blues reported # is a load of crap. Much like it is for virtually every other NHL team.

"this is not a shutdown because players are not making enough money."

No. It is a lockout becuase the owners want to be more profitable. Having all 30 teams profitable does not mean a healthy NHL.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:48 AM
  #22
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
So NYIsles...

you're saying goodbye to dynasties, huh? Never again should a team have a run of six or seven playoff appearances. God forbid they draft well and trade well. We don't want to see good player personnel management anymore, now do we?

And again, it is pointless to compare baseball to hockey. Two totally different sports. I do believe that money makes a bigger difference in baseball, as compared to hockey, and in hockey you'd be hard-pressed to find a NY Yankees situation where one team spends almost twice the next guy. Not even the Rangers can boast that, and with a tax and starting on lower numbers, it would be even tougher (imagine a 100% tax over $40 million...the Rangers payroll would then cost them $120 million, $3 million more than their purported revenue - does anybody honestly believe that would happen, or there's an amount even they wouldn't spend over (which last season I believe was $80 million, which equates to $60 million in the luxury tax world, with $20 being spread to other teams)). Add-in revenue sharing and the payroll number further decreases and other teams get a bigger portion, all the while with payroll decreasing, and revenues increasing for other teams.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 12:02 PM
  #23
JR#9*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
No. It is a lockout becuase the owners want to be more profitable. Having all 30 teams profitable does not mean a healthy NHL.
That is the bottom line.Owners want to be more profitable and even if all 30 teams miraclulously were able to pull that off which is impossible it still doesn't change the fact that we have TOO MANY TEAMS which has set off a chain of events which leads to a much crappier product on the ice.

This league is way too watered down talent wise and because of the agenda to acieve ARTIFICIAL parity skill and talent have been all but eliminated as the main determining factors in games thus killing the entertainment value thus hurting revenues!!!!

A NHL with less teams would be the cure to all the woes.Eliminate 6 markets that can't/won't support their markets properly and you have a much healthier 24 remaining teams which would have significantly more talent on each team due to 6 teams not having rosters anymore.

All this pro-owner stuff kills me.

Answer this--who voted to add 9, that's right NINE teams in a decade and who as a result allowed for trap hockey to ruin the game all in the name of keeping these new markets that paid big $$ to get in artificially competitive??

Who exactly has continuely made poor buisness decisions and not only haven't been able to reach any of the lofty goals they crowed about in the 90's but actually have made the game take some major steps backwards??

JR#9* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 02:47 PM
  #24
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,170
vCash: 500
Great quote from an ESPN article

"The players, its fair to say, have done nothing to enhance the sport over the past 10 years other than playing the games. Shanahan's summit this week suitably highlighted that point, for it was hard to think of another player who had stuck his neck out for the welfare of the game in a similar fashion.

The owners, meanwhile, have greedily lapped up expansion dollars, shifted teams from hockey-crazy cities to iffy new locales and supervised the downgrading of the nightly entertainment package to the point no U.S. network is inclined to purchase a chunk of NHL matches for a sizeable rights fee.

When the league finally came to the conclusion it needed to fix the game, the players became obstructionist, grieving proposed changes to downsize goalie equipment on an issue of procedure.

In 10 years, the players are richer, the league is bigger, but the overall industry is unhealthier."


For the past 10 years everybody got what they wanted. The players got lots of cash in the form of salaries and the owners got lots and lots of cash in the form of expansion entry fees. Now that the expansion dollars are drying up, all of a sudden a change is needed.
Bottom line is that there is no doubt that salaries got out of control. However, all Bettman is trying to do is cover up his own mistakes. It is those mistakes that are not only killing the game, but have also watered down the product so much that the NHL can almost get no revenues from TV anymore. Overexpansion has placed teams into markets that were never meant to support a hockey team. Overexpansion has also caused the game that we all love to become a watered down shell of it's former self. To the point that the majority of America has no desire to watch it. And thus, the networks have no desire to house it.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 03:08 PM
  #25
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
Add-in revenue sharing and the payroll number further decreases and other teams get a bigger portion, all the while with payroll decreasing, and revenues increasing for other teams.
The NHL is the only pro sports league without revenue sharing. Not that there is much revenue to share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR#9
This league is way too watered down talent wise and because of the agenda to acieve ARTIFICIAL parity skill and talent have been all but eliminated as the main determining factors in games thus killing the entertainment value thus hurting revenues!!!!
Is the league more watered down talent-wise or is it just the game is not covered as it used to be so we do not know the players, especially now that a much larger pool of players come from Europe and most are not very marketable despite that most of them learn the language and work hard to help the games image?

Were Hartford, Winnipeg, Quebec popular franchises looking back or was the media more interested in hockey in those days.

As to the product now the players are larger and wear much bigger equipment, buildings cannot change the ice surface so there is less room and less scoring so less entertainment. Goaltenders wear so much equipment today vs what they used to wear.

The team that led the league in scoring this year would have been dead last in 1986. That's quite a decline over only eighteen years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR#9
Eliminate 6 markets that can't/won't support their markets properly and you have a much healthier 24 remaining teams which would have significantly more talent on each team due to 6 teams not having rosters anymore.
The NHLPA will never accept the elimination of 120+ jobs. During the World Cup Team Canada looked the Devils playing a trap and it was an All-Star team.
Eliminating teams will not change what the current generation of coaches teach players today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR#9
Answer this--who voted to add 9, that's right NINE teams in a decade and who as a result allowed for trap hockey to ruin the game all in the name of keeping these new markets that paid big $$ to get in artificially competitive??
Who exactly has continuely made poor buisness decisions and not only haven't been able to reach any of the lofty goals they crowed about in the 90's but actually have made the game take some major steps backwards?? [/QUOTE]Where was the NHLPA to object to all these teams being added. They went right along with owners wanting to collect expanion fees because they wanted a larger NHLPA.

The expansion movement also began before Bettman. He did bring hockey back to Minnesota, Colorado and Atlanta, Dallas is not a failed market, Columbus was an excellent expansion.


Last edited by NYIsles1*: 12-09-2004 at 03:16 PM.
NYIsles1* is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:46 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.