Trots, I give you credit for coming back and answering, more than can be said for SOS who has ducked out twice on these links.
I like a good debate. That's all it is, however, nothing personal.
To address one point,
'I'm not going to convince you to open up your mind. Nor do I wish to. If we were having this conversation pre-2002 CBA, I would agree with your assessment of MLB. The current CBA is achieivng the goals that ownership wanted. They have said as much, as has Selig, and the numbers back them up. Feel free, however, to continue to claim a "win" here, so as to not ruin the rest of your day.'
I address that in my post . . . the gap between the biggest spender, the NYY, and the least is now approaching 8 times, far worse than when that blue ribbon panel met and when George Will wrote that article.
To ignore that point (and its detrimental implications) would be absurd on my part. I think, however, that the excessive spending of NYY is the ONLY concern of some critics of the sport, to the exclusion of some of the more recent positive economic developments. That really is my point. Hence, I'm certainly not suggesting that MLB is a league that is without problems. (And the competition issue, as raised by you and Racki, remains a valid point. Though again, the common refrain of some that the Yankees "buy" a championship every year certainly has been debunked in recent times.) What I am saying is that the sport has progressed since 2002, albeit incrementally, toward addressing some of its problems. I simply cannot agree with your dire assessment. (And BTW, the irony here is that, expect for the playoffs, my interest in the sport today is minimal.)
Again, this is the path you all support for hockey?
As for the sport I care about : I've come around to the concept of a hardcap, in concert with a softcap and luxury tax. And, as I've stated, on the vast majority of issues, I am on the owner's side.
I remain convinced however, that some fans' perspective of how the league should run its finances is based on the vantage point of the league's poorest teams, only. That is faulty thinking, IMO, using the lowest common denominator(s) (no offense to fans of those franchises intended) as your benchmark. Just as the league cannot use the Wings, Avs and other of the "wealthiest" teams as the benchmark either.
A hardcap that allows for some degree of realistic payroll/roster flexibility, and which anticipates growth (that is, places a burden on all - owners and players - to grow the league, not just settle for stopping the bleeding/spending) is the ideal, IMO, speaking in very general terms. That is, something along the lines of the ficticious HF proposal.