HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Should the Oilers fold?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-03-2003, 05:13 AM
  #26
BigMac1212
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sun Devil Country
Country: United States
Posts: 939
vCash: 500
Let me state this clearly.

DO NOT SELL ANY TEAM, that includes my Coyotes!

BigMac1212 is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 06:36 AM
  #27
elphy101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: City of Champions
Posts: 1,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
Always happy to help out.

Ottawa declared bankruptcy protection (and was immediately purchased) because the franchise was saddled with egregious debt *to start with*. Except for debt that was incurred *before* this CBA came into effect, Ottawa has generated satisfactory profits.

And they should make a killing this year.

Other Dave
Yep, Ottawa can compete right now.

Let's wait see though. If nothing changes in the CBA do you really believe that Ottawa will be able to resign Alfredsson now that he is becoming a UFA. Not to mention resigning Hossa, Redden, Chara when their contracts are up. Good luck to Ottawa on that. Ottawa is reaching the point that Edmonton reached a few season ago that forced them to deal/lose their stars Weight, Guerin, Cujo, Hamrlik.

elphy101 is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 07:59 AM
  #28
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphy101
Yep, Ottawa can compete right now.

Let's wait see though. If nothing changes in the CBA do you really believe that Ottawa will be able to resign Alfredsson now that he is becoming a UFA. Not to mention resigning Hossa, Redden, Chara when their contracts are up. Good luck to Ottawa on that. Ottawa is reaching the point that Edmonton reached a few season ago that forced them to deal/lose their stars Weight, Guerin, Cujo, Hamrlik.
Why not?

Ottawa had 10 home dates in the playoffs last year. When was the last time the Oilers had that many playoff dates in a year?

Considering some estimate that each playoff date bring in $1M, that's an extra $10M to pay their players. If they go even further this year, they'll have even more money to pay them.

The Senators charge more for tickets then the Oilers, they sell WAY more suites then the Oilers and they play more playoff games. Why can't Ottawa hold onto their stars like Colorado, as opposed to dealing them off like the Oilers have?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 08:35 AM
  #29
Oilers Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyMeatWhistle
I find it kind of weak to take a parts of a post out of context, put them in an off-topic forum and try to use the responses to back up your argument elsewhere.

You were hoping to put only your side of your argument here, have most people agree with you and then reply to the original post in the Business of Hockey forum (where this topic really belongs) and say look at all the people who think you are wrong!
Uh no, and I find it very weak of you to say that. This thread is here because I was hoping it to get more exposure. I don't know about you, but I like learning from the opinions of more than a couple people (which the one in TBOH was centered on) so stop complaining please.

Quote:
Who wants a league where an average team win the Stanley Cup year after year?
All we want is a smart salary cap that will make players salaries more accsessible for teams around the league. How will this make teams average? It won't, if anything it will make it more competitive. So the fact Oiler fans want some degree of control over salaries means the NHL will become a pee-wee league and the Oilers should fold because of that? That is truly the weakest and most pathetic argument I've ever heard.

Oilers Hockey is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 09:51 AM
  #30
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemskyfan
Uh no, and I find it very weak of you to say that. This thread is here because I was hoping it to get more exposure. I don't know about you, but I like learning from the opinions of more than a couple people (which the one in TBOH was centered on) so stop complaining please.
Then why didn't you just post a link to the thread?

If you can't fight your own battles fine, just be man enough to admit it.

Quote:
All we want is a smart salary cap that will make players salaries more accsessible for teams around the league. How will this make teams average? It won't, if anything it will make it more competitive. So the fact Oiler fans want some degree of control over salaries means the NHL will become a pee-wee league and the Oilers should fold because of that? That is truly the weakest and most pathetic argument I've ever heard.
Regardless of what structure the new CBA takes, star players will always be paid more then average players. If the NHL has a cap it will limit the amount of good players a team can have. If every team can only have 3 or 4 stars then you get a whole bunch of mediocre teams.

If Edmonton can't be successful in the league because their fans won't support the team with enough revenues, why should the league accomodate them? Why should Ottawa, or any other small market team that can be successful, be deprived of the chance to have an outstanding team because Edmonton's fans don't want to pay the going rate to watch an outstanding team?

Of course, the other hypothesis is that Edmonton's fans will support the team enough to make an outstanding team financially viable, just like Ottawa's fans do. But if that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with the current CBA from a fan's point of view.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 10:07 AM
  #31
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Ottawa can compete now. But many of their young "stars" have yet to cash in on a big contract. Under the current conditions, Ottawa's payroll would like be in the 50 million range in 5 years if they kept all their key players. Would they be able to compete then?

dulzhok is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 11:07 AM
  #32
Oilers Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
If you can't fight your own battles fine, just be man enough to admit it.
If you weren't ignorant you would have noticed that I posted "I am not a financial expect, nor do I pretend to be". But I won't take you seriously because you resorted to personal attacks since it appears you don't know wtf you're talking about, as if your credibility needed to be taken down any more, you just flushed it down the toilet. Good job!

I still haven't heard anyone explain HOW the league would become mediocre if we got a new CBA.

Quote:
If Edmonton can't be successful in the league because their fans won't support the team with enough revenues
We do support our team. For a mediocre team we still sell out all our games. No one said anything about Edmonton fans ceasing to support their team and stop going to games without a new CBA. That is foolishness.

And just because Edmonton does sell out right now doesn't mean the current CBA is perfect. That is ignorant.


Last edited by Oilers Hockey: 12-03-2003 at 11:10 AM.
Oilers Hockey is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 02:26 PM
  #33
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
Ottawa can compete now. But many of their young "stars" have yet to cash in on a big contract. Under the current conditions, Ottawa's payroll would like be in the 50 million range in 5 years if they kept all their key players. Would they be able to compete then?
If the Sens have deep playoff runs (ie continue to be successful) over the next five years, there's no reason why they couldn't have a player personnel budget comparable to, say, New Jersey's (52 million in 2002-03).

If they crash and burn over that time, of course they'll have to trade away some of their big budget underproducers. That's the price of failure.

Other Dave

Other Dave is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 02:28 PM
  #34
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemskyfan
If you weren't ignorant you would have noticed that I posted "I am not a financial expect, nor do I pretend to be". But I won't take you seriously because you resorted to personal attacks since it appears you don't know wtf you're talking about, as if your credibility needed to be taken down any more, you just flushed it down the toilet. Good job!
What are you babbling about?

Do you think insulting me makes my claims about your intentions any less valid?

Quote:
I still haven't heard anyone explain HOW the league would become mediocre if we got a new CBA.
Maybe you should try READING instead. I just posted how that happens in this thread.

Quote:
We do support our team. For a mediocre team we still sell out all our games. No one said anything about Edmonton fans ceasing to support their team and stop going to games without a new CBA. That is foolishness.

And just because Edmonton does sell out right now doesn't mean the current CBA is perfect. That is ignorant.

Well if you do support your team then you can afford a dominating team. If you can have a dominating team, what is your problem with the current CBA?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 03:31 PM
  #35
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemskyfan
I still haven't heard anyone explain HOW the league would become mediocre if we got a new CBA.
The point is to spread around the talent more. With a $50 million salary cap, we will be saying to the Avalanche: Turf Foote and Blake. Isn't that why you want a salary cap - so the Colorado Avalanche can't get Rob Blake and the Blues can't have Doug Weight?

The objective is to produce a league much more like the NFL. Whether it ends up lowering overall salaries or not, a cap - hard or soft - forces parity. That is the point, the purpose. Why do you have problems understanding that a salary cap - if it is effective - will eliminate elite teams.

If you remember the pre-cap NFL, you remember the New York Giants, then the Green Bay Packers, the Dallas Cowboys, the Steelers, the 49ers... None of those teams could possibly exist today.

These are the teams we remember in sports. Great ones. In hockey, the Habs, the Oilers, Flyers, the Bruins, the Islanders, the Flames, the Penguins, the Red Wings. There is not a single fan who does not recognize which Boston team I am talking about or which Islander team is being referenced. Those were all great teams.

Today they would all be very expensive. Heck, they cost more then than all the other teams. All of them would also be very rich today. The Islanders would have a new rink. They'd be selling out. They'd be getting a dozen playoff games a year.

Those teams are the point! The game being played at it's very best! That's what the NHL is supposed to be selling.

And you want to do away with them. You want it so that everybody spends about the same money. You want it so that everybody has a chance every year. You want Edmonton to win and you think money is the reason they don't.

The choice is:

1) An NHL that includes the Oilers along with 29 other mediocre teams

or

2) An NHL that excludes the Oilers but the league has the normal ratio of 6 elite teams, 17 mediocre teams and 6 bottom feeders.

This is a very easy call for me, so easy I think only the very young could imagine that number one is a better choice for hockey.

Personally, I see no reason why Edmonton cannot compete. They can be one of 30 teams trying to be great. The Oilers became great because in three years they drafted Messier, Lowe, Anderson, Coffey, Kurri, Fuhr, Smith and Moog.

If they accomplished the same thing 1998-00, the team wouldn't cost $30 million - they'd be too young to cost much - and it would win the Stanley Cup. The Oilers would be selling out at prices that are twice as high and all of Alberta would be signed up for pay per view. A dozen playoff games... I think they would do just fine for years.

Oiler fans tell me otherwise. They tell me the NHL is unfair to them. They would be good if they had money even though they haven't drafted anyone for 10 years. They can never be good again because tickets are priced at half what they cost in Detroit.

Too bad, then, Edmonton. Either quit whining or get out. Quit trying to ruin it for the teams and athletes that do achieve greatness. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Hockey needs greatness. It does not need Edmonton.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 04:04 PM
  #36
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,658
vCash: 500


I cringe at those fans who casually like to play God and eliminate other cities' franchsies, without any regard for the overall well-being of the league. That said, there are limits.

Modest changes in the next CBA should allow for a somewhat more equitable playing field, but a "socialistic" NHL is the last thing this fan wants to see.

I want to see Edmonton, Nashville, Florida, etc., etc. thrive, and contraction should be the very last option, not the first. And it certainly should not be viewed as the solution for curing the NHL's economic woes. (A myth perpetrated here daily in simplistic threads like "What franchises do you want to see destroyed?! )

However, saving franchises at the sake of depreciating the quality of play/competiveness (and punishing great teams) is a sad remedy. Economically, there is clearly major differences among the various franchises. On the ice, though, the NHL is highly competitive. You have a small handful of superbly managed frnachises that contend constantly. On the other end of the spectrum, you have a couple of teams who are poorly managed, have small budgets and seem forever destined for failure. Despite suggestions to the contrary, the vast majority of the league consists of franchises, rich and poor, who have the means to win. Just ask Anaheim, Carolina and Minnesota. Today, those teams are passed off by cynics as "one-year wonders". A year prior, the same critics wanted at least two of those teams sent to the contraction chopping block. Go figure. And interestingly, there seems to be one or two of those teams every year - labeled a failed franchise in October, only to make an exciting run through the playoffs in May.

Contrived parity is the worse scenario and one that the NHL should avoid at all costs.

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 04:07 PM
  #37
Jarnberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 5,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Personally, the only thing I'd like to see fold are "fans" who want to tear down NHL franchises like lemonade stands.

Jarnberg is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 05:58 PM
  #38
elphy101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: City of Champions
Posts: 1,568
vCash: 500
What's wrong with Parity?

I find the NFL is more exciting in the last 5 years than it has ever been. Each year brings something totally new. You don't know who will win the championship. Before the season, every team has hope that they can win the championship. Is that really so bad? It seems pretty damn good to me. Why do you think the NFL has grown so much more than any other league over the last decade? The salary cap is not a bad thing.

Besides their are still dominant teams as well. The Bucs made the playoff and were contender for 5 years before the collapse this year. Green Bay has been a contender for several years as well.

Parity is a damn good thing if you ask me. It makes things so much more exciting.

elphy101 is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 06:12 PM
  #39
Bear57
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 63
vCash: 500
Hey BigDaddy, I wouldn't boast too much as to how well Ottawa supports the Sens. Ottawa, year to date, has filled the Correl Centre to capacity 93.1% while Edmonton has bested that figure with a 98.5% capacity attendance figure ....

Bear57 is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 08:02 PM
  #40
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
Infuriating

Quote:
Hey BigDaddy, I wouldn't boast too much as to how well Ottawa supports the Sens. Ottawa, year to date, has filled the Correl Centre to capacity 93.1% while Edmonton has bested that figure with a 98.5% capacity attendance figure ....

Average attendance in Ottawa: 17,222
Average attendance in Edmonton: 16,556

Not to mention Ottawa has 147 suites. How many suites are there in Edmonton? 50?

The point for any team is to maximize profits. That is obvious. If Ottawa generates higher revenues drawing 17,500 a game at current prices on average than if it were to lower ticket prics 25 dollars across the board to average 18,500, they'll keep their 10000 empty seats night and generate higher revenues. What matters more, the amount of revenue generated or the perception of sellouts? The other fans and teams in the league look at the Sens attendance and wonder about why it isn't sold out every night and the loid out and the like but if they are currently maximizing revenues sitting at 93% capacity with these prices they'll keep it like this. Case in point, 16,289 show up on Monday to see the Flyers and reporters here were alling the crowd 'thin'. In Edmonton, its just under their 'great' average.

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 08:39 PM
  #41
gb701
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicycle Repairman
The question isn't "should" they fold, the question is "will" they fold. Spokesman Cal Nichols has as much admitted in the press that the Edmonton Investors Group is nothing more than an ad-hoc coalition set up on a temporary basis and their financial stake is not intended to be long term in nature. Add to that the decrepid condition of their aging facility with no modern revenue-producing replacement anywhere close to being on-stream, their future is tenuous at best (favorable new CBA or not).
I have no idea where you are from or if you have ever seen the "decrepid" (try spell check) facility, but the bottom line is you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

"Originally Posted by Other Dave
Always happy to help out.

Ottawa declared bankruptcy protection (and was immediately purchased) because the franchise was saddled with egregious debt *to start with*. Except for debt that was incurred *before* this CBA came into effect, Ottawa has generated satisfactory profits.

And they should make a killing this year.

Other Dave"

Yep - they compete just fine after manipulating the bankruptcy to dump huge debt and thereby effectively set themselves up in business at a lower than real cost. By that standard, any team can generate profits - they just have to find sufficiently gullible creditors.

If you want, you can "contract" the league to the select large teams that are really competitive. It doesn't make sense to the owners, and it won't happen. There is a reason why the size of the league was developed - it is not accidental - and a reason they are in the cities they are in. There may be movement of teams or individual failures, but not until after we know what is in the CBA.

gb701 is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 09:02 PM
  #42
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
"Originally Posted by Other Dave
Always happy to help out.

Ottawa declared bankruptcy protection (and was immediately purchased) because the franchise was saddled with egregious debt *to start with*. Except for debt that was incurred *before* this CBA came into effect, Ottawa has generated satisfactory profits.

And they should make a killing this year.

Other Dave"


Did they not incure that debt because of the arena? Are they now not benefiting from the arena? Would Ottawa still be making money if they had not incurred debt to build the arena? I like asking questions.

The Rage is offline  
Old
12-03-2003, 09:03 PM
  #43
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin

Hockey needs greatness. It does not need Edmonton.

Tom
Two words: Luxury tax. We can keep greatness, and we can keep the franchise in Edmonton.

The Rage is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 02:27 AM
  #44
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
The objective is to produce a league much more like the NFL. Whether it ends up lowering overall salaries or not, a cap - hard or soft - forces parity. That is the point, the purpose. Why do you have problems understanding that a salary cap - if it is effective - will eliminate elite teams.
Why do you have a problem understanding that the NFL is increasing revenue every year? They arent losing fans. Parity increases interest in every market because any team can win. Parity also increases something else very important - gambling. When I sit down and think about I hated watching the Dallas Cowboys win all those games in the early 90's (early cap days). I got bored watching Detroit be the favorite team year after year.

You know every time Ive seen an elite team that wasnt my favorite team it actually killed my interest in watching because I knew who was going to win.

Quote:
These are the teams we remember in sports. Great ones. In hockey, the Habs, the Oilers, Flyers, the Bruins, the Islanders, the Flames, the Penguins, the Red Wings. There is not a single fan who does not recognize which Boston team I am talking about or which Islander team is being referenced. Those were all great teams.
When I sit to think about it further is it really the elite teams we care about? Or is it the under dog that we want to see knock them off?

There are still under dogs in the NFL, remember the Patriots?

Quote:
Today they would all be very expensive. Heck, they cost more then than all the other teams. All of them would also be very rich today. The Islanders would have a new rink. They'd be selling out. They'd be getting a dozen playoff games a year.
Thats exactly the point. Today those teams would all be too expensive. Would any team today be able to afford and Edmonton dynasty? Would any team be able to pay a team long enough to win 4 or 5 cups? I really dont think any team coud fork out that kind of money except maybe the Rangers. And would they really be making money? Or just being able to suffer the loses from having such a hig payroll?

Quote:
Those teams are the point! The game being played at it's very best! That's what the NHL is supposed to be selling.
No the point is that unless you have an independently wealthy owner willing to possibly lose money you cannot be sucessful. Thats a problem.

You dont want so called forced mediocrity but isnt that what you are going to end up with? If things continue the way they are only the richest of owners will be able to afford dynasties. Keyword afford, not draft and develop. The teams with less rich owners will be forced into a state of constant rebuilding. They can shoot for a couple playoff runs then let talent go as it becomes too expensive and reload. They would be forced to be mediocre because they cant afford to be elite.

Welcome to MLB.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 07:15 AM
  #45
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Why do you have a problem understanding that the NFL is increasing revenue every year? They arent losing fans. Parity increases interest in every market because any team can win. Parity also increases something else very important - gambling.
Oh, let's turn the NHL into horse racing! now that's a popular sport. Draws more people than the NFL.

Speaking of which, aren't you even a little suspicious about the league? No betting scandals? Why hasn't anyone approached a referee with a few million? Wave that hanky for holding at a key moment. Make sure the spread holds, eh? Billions are bet every week and nobody has ever thought about making a few bucks on the chump sitting in front of the tube?

Think none of the games are fixed? Cornerbacks fall down all the time don't they? For a big payday, can they fall down at the right time?

Quote:
When I sit down and think about I hated watching the Dallas Cowboys win all those games in the early 90's (early cap days). I got bored watching Detroit be the favorite team year after year.
In other words you don't care about the quality of the game. You only care about who wins.

I think the sports entertainment package for fans like you is the World Wrestling Federation. Big TV ratings, big profits, lots of jiggle and excitement. Just like the NFL. The only difference is the WWF admits the fix is in. Can't we leave hockey to the sports fan? You can have the NFL and WWF, even the NBA. I don't care about baseball. Just leave us hockey, okay?

Doesn't wrestling play in Edmonton?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-07-2003, 08:24 AM
  #46
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Oh, let's turn the NHL into horse racing! now that's a popular sport. Draws more people than the NFL.

Speaking of which, aren't you even a little suspicious about the league? No betting scandals? Why hasn't anyone approached a referee with a few million? Wave that hanky for holding at a key moment. Make sure the spread holds, eh? Billions are bet every week and nobody has ever thought about making a few bucks on the chump sitting in front of the tube?

Think none of the games are fixed? Cornerbacks fall down all the time don't they? For a big payday, can they fall down at the right time?
I think youve lost your mind.

Is everything a conspiracy? Are there no facts to argue the points anymore now we have to turn to this. Ok Ill play along.

Lets turn the NHL into nascar. Thats more popular then the NHL. We can watch the players skate around in circles, right turns only. At least we could see the fastest skaters skate instead of being tackled.

Speaking of which arent you suspicious of the NHL? No betting scandals? Why hasn't anyone approached a referee with a few million?Put that little whistle in his pocket when holding is going on at a key moment. Make sure the spread holds, huh? Oh thats right NHL fans spend billions every week on Molson not betting.

Think none of the games are fixed? Players fall down all the time. Goalies allow soft goals all the time. Players fan on shots all the time. Players break sticks all the time. Oh my god its a conspiracy they must have cut those sticks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
In other words you don't care about the quality of the game. You only care about who wins.

I think the sports entertainment package for fans like you is the World Wrestling Federation. Big TV ratings, big profits, lots of jiggle and excitement. Just like the NFL. The only difference is the WWF admits the fix is in. Can't we leave hockey to the sports fan? You can have the NFL and WWF, even the NBA. I don't care about baseball. Just leave us hockey, okay?

Doesn't wrestling play in Edmonton?
When did I ever say I didnt care about quality? I said I dont like seeing the same team win all the time.

Hockey is my favorite sport but because I think they should move in a different direction Im not a sports fan?

You are right you have given me the greatest, most logical, fact filled response I have ever gotten and have swung me to your side. The NHL is great and should not change. Teams are in bankruptcy because they are lying and hiding money. The NFL is a terribly run business and not something a real sports fan would watch. The WWE is horrible because it is big on tv, makes big money, and is exciting.

I from now on will be a grumpy old foggey, resistent to change, I want my dynasties, remember the good old days, we dont need that new fangled television, we dont need to change with the times, I dont care if we are losing fans, you arent real sports fans if they dont watch hockey, everything is a conspiracy.

I dont know why you are asking me if wrestling plays in Edmonton. I hope you dont think I live there? I dont live there and have never visited.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-07-2003, 08:49 AM
  #47
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphy101
What's wrong with Parity?

I find the NFL is more exciting in the last 5 years than it has ever been. Each year brings something totally new. You don't know who will win the championship. Before the season, every team has hope that they can win the championship. Is that really so bad? It seems pretty damn good to me. Why do you think the NFL has grown so much more than any other league over the last decade? The salary cap is not a bad thing.

Besides their are still dominant teams as well. The Bucs made the playoff and were contender for 5 years before the collapse this year. Green Bay has been a contender for several years as well.

Parity is a damn good thing if you ask me. It makes things so much more exciting.
Its funny if you look at the arguments for parity people site the NFL which has benefited greatly from parity. Interest is up, revenue is up. Parity has not made the league boring or unexciting. I really think people that dont like the NFL today, for the most part, have never liked it.

The arguments against parity are just opinion. I dont like it. I want to see dynasties, as if watching the same team win 4 years in a row is more exciting then watching a different team every year. The NFL is mediocre and boring.

Nobody ever gives examples, based on fact, of how parity has hurt the NFL. Attendance isnt down, the tv contract inst in jeopardy, revenue isnt down. Nothing can be said except I dont like it.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
12-07-2003, 10:17 AM
  #48
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots

Speaking of which arent you suspicious of the NHL? No betting scandals? Why hasn't anyone approached a referee with a few million?Put that little whistle in his pocket when holding is going on at a key moment. Make sure the spread holds, huh? Oh thats right NHL fans spend billions every week on Molson not betting.
If billions were bet on hockey, I'd worry about it. There is no money in fixing a hockey game so I don't worry about it. Racing commissions do worry about horse races being fixed for obvious reasons. The NFL? Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. I guess there is no possibility of evil.

Quote:
When did I ever say I didnt care about quality? I said I dont like seeing the same team win all the time.
The logic goes like this:

1) The best games are played between the best teams. The Olympics produced better hockey than the NHL, no?

2) In the NHL, the best games are the ones played between Colorado and Vancouver or Detroit and St. Louis or....

3) Even when the game is between a great team and an also ran, the game is better than when two also rans play. The also ran usually steps up. The great team won't play down like a mediocre one does.

4) Artificial parity eliminates great teams.

5) Therefore the overall quality of play is worse.

Quote:
The NFL is a terribly run business and not something a real sports fan would watch. The WWE is horrible because it is big on tv, makes big money, and is exciting.
The NFL is obviously a well run business. So is the WWF. Otherwise I agree. A sports fan doesn't get excited about Macho Randy Savage. Or Warren Sapp for that matter. Football is a TV show, not a sport. The NFL would not exist without TV. It would not exist without betting. Is "Survivor" a sport? Is bingo a sport?

Quote:
The arguments against parity are just opinion. I dont like it. I want to see dynasties, as if watching the same team win 4 years in a row is more exciting then watching a different team every year.
I agree that we are talking about opinion and it is opinion about what the NHL really wants. It wants to please people like you. It thinks it can sell you mediocre hockey and convince you it is great. They are probably right. The business will probably be more profitable, but what's good for the business is not necessarily good for the sport.

I'm objecting to that vision of the future for hockey. I don't want the NHL to go in that direction. For fans, I think this is the only issue that matters in the labour dispute. The quality of the game. Some people think it is okay to go in this direction. That it will be better. I don't.

This is exactly what people should be arguing about. Do we want elite teams? Are dynasties okay? Will the game be better if nobody can get any better than a couple of good players more than the average team? Will the game be better if signing a couple of free agents turns a team from a loser into a winner? Will the game be better if more than half the rosters change every year? Do we cheer for hockey or for uniforms?

These are the issues. The issues are not "protecting small markets" or $300 million in losses or competitive imbalance.

The issue is whether we want a system that rewards the good or a system that rewards the lucky. Put that to the fans honestly. Let's hear Bettman describe how his new system will work. His vision of the league. Let's hear what hockey fans have to say about that vision.

Why don't the owners make this agenda clear?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-07-2003, 12:09 PM
  #49
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin

I'm objecting to that vision of the future for hockey. I don't want the NHL to go in that direction. For fans, I think this is the only issue that matters in the labour dispute. The quality of the game. Some people think it is okay to go in this direction. That it will be better. I don't.


Tom
I have a question. Do you think there is any way a restrictive hard cap will ever actually happen? Personally, I don't see any way that could happen as the players would never go for it. The players, in my opinion, have the upperhand in the up coming negotiations. Players have been saving up money for years, and most could concievably retire right now (although obviously that's not their preffered choice). The Owners, on the other hand, would all be constantly losing money during a lock out. I think the players may concede a few points, but a hard cap probably won't happen.

The Rage is offline  
Old
12-07-2003, 05:40 PM
  #50
Oilers Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
Tom, after reading your last post, I have to admit I now understand what you're saying, I really do and you have many valid points.

The point I'm trying to stress is that Edmonton really can't afford to pay their stars nearly $10,000,000 to keep them. I see your point about "If Edmonton is such a great hockey market, then how come the fans won't rally behind the team and spend more money?"...I don't know the answer to that. The Oilers raised ticket prices and they are still selling out, even though I realize that those prices are still cheaper than other places.

I would think that a cap would make the league competitive, not mediocre, because every team would have an equal chance to become "powerhouses". I do realize your point about the league becoming mediocre (in my opinion it already is). Oiler fans don't "whine" about salary caps, we simply think it would make things better for the league, not just for us. If we were just thinking about ourselves not caring about the reprecussions of a cap on every franchise, then yes, that would be ignorant.

You know what your talking about Tom, so I'm want to ask, what is the best solution to fix this problem? I appreciate your insight because I learned alot of the business of hockey through the small market thread alone! I honestly think if the Oilers folded, it would bother most fans. Hell, the fact Hartford, Quebec City and Winnipeg are gone still bothers me, I'll admit it.

I await your response. Thanks.

Oilers Hockey 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 04:55 AM.

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.