cw7 said:
Not gonna argue with that. For financial purposes, for exposure purposes; you're right. Though I'm not about believing any sort of agenda or conspiracy theory. Too many different personalities in too many different situations; the possibility they could work together towards that goal is a minute one at best. And without a hint of it thus far, no. Too many curious eyes watching for that to happen.
I don't really think it is a priority item like cost certainty is, but everybody still remembers the Fox TV contract. That looked like a great deal when Vancouver-New York in the SCF blew the socks off the ratings charts on both sides of the border. There hasn't been a good TV matchup since. We've had 12 different teams make the Final Four in the past three years without New York, Chicago or Los Angeles involved.
Nobody has to consciously drive the league in that direction. No agenda or conspiracy is required. The invisible hand makes it happen. It is in everyone's interest. The biggest competitive issue is not imbalance. Everyone has pretty much the same chance to build a great team and that's fair. The problem is that a great team is great for the life of the core and that will usually run for about a decade.
To me it is easy to see the three teams that will most likely dominate the East for the next ten years: Tampa, Ottawa and Atlanta. There are more possibilities in the West, but I'd pick San Jose, Vancouver, and, believe it or not, Nashville. Suppose four of those six teams win 10 Cups in the next 10 years and dominate like Detroit, Dallas, Colorado and New Jersey dominated the last decade.
Nobody except those teams thinks that is a very good idea and even those teams recognize it is not good for the league's bottom line. None of the teams that dominated the last decade are particularly large markets, but they aren't small hockey markets either. Suppose all the giants of the next decade come from small markets.
I think all 30 owners realize this is a real possibility even if they don't say one word about it. It will factor into their decisions as individuals, and that self interest would drive the league away from the existing system and towards a system that would generate the most money.
The priority is cost certainty. Brian Burke made this very clear the other night when he was defending the ownership position. It doesn't have to be a cap of any sort, he said. They could just add a hold back on the salary with money being kicked back to the owners if the player share exceeded XX%. (This is one ownership model I would support if the alternative is a lockout. Guarantee the profits and otherwise leave everything else the same. I don't care what the players make and I don't care what the owners make.)
But a far better system for the owners involves the combination of earlier free agency (so money spent on players is spent on guys who are still in their primes) and a high salary cap. As long as the cap is substantially above what most markets can afford to spend without winner's revenues, the few mega markets will be the only teams able to build by buying. They will be able to afford to spend to the cap even with the loser and buy good players to boot. It will not rule out small market winners but they will have to build the same way teams are built today.
So I have a good view of how hockey is growing in these two cities. Rec leagues sprouting up everywhere, not nearly as many as a Canadian city mind you but most around here are just getting used to this.
I'm sure, but it will take decades to catch up. The most talented youngsters won't get the great competition, it's way harder to get ice and the kid can't play pickup hockey on the local pond or in a tennis court that has been frozen or a backyard rink Dad built. The Canadian Minor Hockey system is a factory designed to produce NHL players. Talented kids are identified by about age 11 and streamed into elite programs that involve perhaps 100 games a year.
It will take a long time - if ever - before a Georgia boy has anywhere near the opportunity to get good enough.
I agree, it is better for the fan's wallet if the game doesn't grow. But it's the reality that we live in right now. You can't go back and change the past to put the game back to when you thought it was better. You either accept what is the reality now and deal with that, or you become bitter harkening back to days that will never be again.
I agree with this. I accept a 30 team NHL. I'm a guy who decided the move from Quebec and Winnipeg had to happen. I don't have to like it but if teams up here can't compete with an American market trying to stop the move is like trying to reverse gravity. I opposed expansion for several reason but not the cities involved. If hockey is going to expand in the US it has to go where the population is growing.
But there is a difference between accepting change and growth - sometimes reluctantly, sometimes not - and actively supporting it when it is not in my interest. If the Rangers, Hawks and Kings all suck it is evidence the league is fair. If that means a lousy TV contract, so be it. Good. The only way to rectify that is to tilt the league towards the big markets. That isn't change or growth that any fan should support.
Tom