Hillbillypriest - See, that all makes tons of sense to me. Because what was once a disadvantaged (by virtue of a system they helped design) group on the BOG is in the majority, they are able to force things that play to their advantage more and (deliberitely or not) put what were the big market teams at a distinct disadvantage in the new financial system. But the question remains, do those teams owe something to the teams they're now trying to screw? My answer remains yes, if only to maintain good relations among the BOG or the large legions of fans that follow those teams.
HootchieCootchie (Hah, I got your name right this time. Go me). I'm all for an equal playing field. I'm not all for screwing the teams that have been the marketing lifeblood of the league for the past 10 years to get there.
Frankly (AND THIS IS MY OPINION HERE, SO FEEL FREE TO TELL ME IT'S DUMB BUT I'M NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE MY MIND) *ahem* Frankly, I think what most of the small-market teams want revenge for has everything to do with other teams winning, not with a level-playing field. From 1980-1992, 10 different teams were in the Stanley Cup Finals, with 5 champions (Islanders, Oilers, Habs, Flams, Penguins). From 1993-2003, there were 16 seperate teams in the Finals with 7 champions (Penguins, Devils, Rangers, Avalanche, Red Wings, Stars, Lightning).
Even if you account for the fact that the league expanded in the 1990s, statistically, more teams made the finals more recently rather than 12-25 years ago (what many people hold up as the paragon of "competitive balance"). Since 1993, no team has won more than two Cups in a row (which has happened once, by the way) and no team won more than three total, whereas from 1980-1992, one team won 5 Cups. one team won four in a row and three champions repeated (five if you count each Islander repeat as a seperate one).
You can tell me all you want that "teams had the same opportunity to excel in that era, now it's all about salary," (though if someone could link me to where I could find historical league payrolls, I'd love to look at those numbers), but it was an era of dynasties and concentrated talent, just like it is now.
And hey, the fact that you're so excited that teams can't excell in the ways they used to must mean they were doing something right to win under the old system.