Imposed parity?

[Cully9]

I guess you're arguing that NFL attendance is higher therefore its a better game. Maybe you should look at the facts of supply and demand. Each NFL team has to fill up its staduim 8 times a year, usually at a time when pretty much every fan is home and can go. Every game is an event. There's always a weeklong build up to it.

I'm sure if Edmonton only played 8 home games a year, they'd have no trouble selling out Commonwealth stadium every time.

Don't make them dig up the TV numbers to support the success of the NFL. Supply and demand or not, the NHL as a league can't hold a candle to the NFL right now. Just because there are journalists who throw out NFL parity as a catch phrase doesn't make it inherently true -- it's also a pet peeve of Sports Illustrated's Dr. Z., and he's been covering the NFL forever. For all the greatness of the old Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers etc., what good was it for fans of the bottom dwellers, knowing that year after year, they were stuck? That's the whole point. A league wants all its teams to see a light at the end of the tunnel because it gives the fans reason to show up. When the fans show up, teams make money. When teams make money, they can pay more in salaries. Everybody wins.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Don't make them dig up the TV numbers to support the success of the NFL. Supply and demand or not, the NHL as a league can't hold a candle to the NFL right now. Just because there are journalists who throw out NFL parity as a catch phrase doesn't make it inherently true -- it's also a pet peeve of Sports Illustrated's Dr. Z., and he's been covering the NFL forever. For all the greatness of the old Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers etc., what good was it for fans of the bottom dwellers, knowing that year after year, they were stuck? That's the whole point. A league wants all its teams to see a light at the end of the tunnel because it gives the fans reason to show up. When the fans show up, teams make money. When teams make money, they can pay more in salaries. Everybody wins.

But those bottom dwellers were and are stuck becuase they have bad management.

And just for facts sake, the NFL averages roughly 65,000 per game, which is about 520,000 per team a year. NHL average attendance is about 16,000 or roughly 650,000 per team per year.

 

[Optimist*]

I guess you're arguing that NFL attendance is higher therefore its a better game. Maybe you should look at the facts of supply and demand. Each NFL team has to fill up its staduim 8 times a year, usually at a time when pretty much every fan is home and can go. Every game is an event. There's always a weeklong build up to it.

I'm sure if Edmonton only played 8 home games a year, they'd have no trouble selling out Commonwealth stadium every time.

Nice try but totally irrelevent. The NFL has always been 8 games. Baseline is the same. The fact that attendence has gone up over the years in debate is the factual answer. People like it. Revenues have exploded and their TV contract has gone thru the roof. It might not be fun to you as a Red Wing fan, but for the other 25 teams or so, its important and will lead to much greater revenue and a bigger TV contract. All of which will be shared 50% by the players.

 

[Cully9]

But those bottom dwellers were and are stuck becuase they have bad management.

And just for facts sake, the NFL averages roughly 65,000 per game, which is about 520,000 per team a year. NHL average attendance is about 16,000 or roughly 650,000 per team per year.

The only reason team's are bottom dwellers is because of bad management? If no cap contributes to the greatness of keeping the same teams on top, it also has to keep the same teams on bottom. You can't have one without the other.

When a cap is involved, though, then the teams on top are forced to make decisions and sometimes, those players go to teams that aren't very good and help them get better.

Just for fact's sake, Part II: Tonight's Dallas-Philadelphia NFL game will be watched in about 11 million homes (in primetime), about ten times what an NHL regular season game would generate.

 

[hockeytown9321]

The only reason team's are bottom dwellers is because of bad management? If no cap contributes to the greatness of keeping the same teams on top, it also has to keep the same teams on bottom. You can't have one without the other.

A cap or no cap has nothign to do with who has a crap team. Agian I point you in the direction of the Detroit Lions. They averaged about 6 wins a year in the 10 years before the cap and the same since. They can't compete becuase they are poorly run team.

The Carolina Hurricanes have a bad team not becuase the Red Wings or the Rangers or the Leafs screwed them. They're bad becuase they have a poor owner who holds no one accountable.

When a cap is involved, though, then the teams on top are forced to make decisions and sometimes, those players go to teams that aren't very good and help them get better.

So its fair if a team loses a superstar they developed becuase their monetary system prevents them from doing so? Doesn't that like what everybody *****es about now? I guess i just don't understand why tose teams on top should be forced to make that decison. If they have the revenue to resign their players, they should be able to.

And quite frankly, sports are business. Franchise owners are businessmen. If they can't make enough money to sustain their team the way they want to, then they should fold it or continue to lose money. Thats how business works. Sorry.

Just for fact's sake, Part II: Tonight's Dallas-Philadelphia NFL game will be watched in about 11 million homes (in primetime), about ten times what an NHL regular season game would generate.

You're right. But you'll have to show me when I wrote that the NHL was on par with football's ratings. I was told in a roundabout way that the NFL's level of play must be pretty good because they have better attendance than the NHL. The numbers say different.


I saw somebody describe the cap as affimative action, and they're right. Instead of figuring out ways to get the poorest temas to the level of the best, they want to take the best and drag it down to the level of the worst. If thats what you want, then great. I don't think its right or good for the game.

 

[Cully9]

A cap or no cap has nothign to do with who has a crap team. Agian I point you in the direction of the Detroit Lions. They averaged about 6 wins a year in the 10 years before the cap and the same since. They can't compete becuase they are poorly run team.

If a cap has no impact on who has a crap team, then it can't have an impact on who has a good team. The best teams find ways to make the cap work for them (New England does it now, Green Bay has been consistently successful, Denver). Thus, a poorly run team is going to stink, cap or no cap, and a well run team is going to be good, cap or no cap. That should be the objective in the first place, shouldn't it?

So its fair if a team loses a superstar they developed becuase their monetary system prevents them from doing so? Doesn't that like what everybody *****es about now? I guess i just don't understand why tose teams on top should be forced to make that decison. If they have the revenue to resign their players, they should be able to.

And quite frankly, sports are business. Franchise owners are businessmen. If they can't make enough money to sustain their team the way they want to, then they should fold it or continue to lose money. Thats how business works. Sorry.

Except, when every team is on a more equal financial playing field, there aren't teams (say, like Edmonton has been for the past decade) acting as virtual feeders for the rest of the league because, if all teams have the same financial playing field, there's less likelihood of a star leaving and heading to the same four teams in the west (along with the Leafs and Rangers in the East) that have dominated the star-acquisition market for the last decade or so.

Sports are business, but they are a business that is more successful when it doesn't put the remaining franchises out of business. Thus, the competition is limited (ie. this isn't McDonald's vs. KFC) People aren't showing up to see the Red Wings play intrasquad scrimmages every night. They need opposition.

The business is the NHL, and if the owners of the NHL decide they want to change the financial parameters of the game, they have every right to do so.

You're right. But you'll have to show me when I wrote that the NHL was on par with football's ratings. I was told in a roundabout way that the NFL's level of play must be pretty good because they have better attendance than the NHL. The numbers say different.

It's a foolish argument to take a sport that plays five times as many games and only base the success of the sport on live attendance. If live attendance is the only measure of success, baseball is king of the world because no one else is touching 162 games. The grand scale of a league's success in this day and age is television, which is why the NHL is in no position to criticize how the NFL is run.

I saw somebody describe the cap as affimative action, and they're right. Instead of figuring out ways to get the poorest temas to the level of the best, they want to take the best and drag it down to the level of the worst. If thats what you want, then great. I don't think its right or good for the game.

How would you suggest making the poorest teams closer to the best? They already have the advantage of higher draft picks. What else can be done, aside from leveling the financial playing field, to make the sport fair? If all you're looking for is the next dynasty, then the cap isn't going to do you any good, but if you want teams to go into each season with a fair chance to compete, then the cap helps move towards that objective.

 

[quat]

Competition doesn't have anything to do with it. I could get five people and you could get five people and we could play a hockey game. It'd probably be pretty competitive, but I doubt it would be NHL level play.


When you have a cap, teams cannot sustain excellence. Look at the NFL. Its fact. Talent is spread extremely thin across the league. The NFL's cap is there for the sole purpose of creating "parity", and a byproduct of that has been a sharp decrase in the quality of play. If thats what you want for the NHL, fine. I hold my team to higher standards.

It seems what you are talking about, what you are worried about, is "your" team being no longer able to be among the elite for an unlimited length of time, rather than good competitive hockey across the board. Well, fair enough, but why not speak your mind directly. IE you are worried first and formost about your team and don't care about the others.

Personally, I would rather have an extremely competitive league that rewards teams that draft, manage and coach very well. Historically, this would be a crappy thing to wish for as a Canucks fan, because they pretty much have always sucked in this regard... but so it goes.

I must add however, that you still haven't proven your point at all. You have a very vague hypothothis about the effects of a cap by using the NFL as a template. It "may" prove that it's very difficult for teams to sustain a champion over the course of years (or it may not), but it certainly doesn't address the issue of mediocrity. The NFL is extremely competitive and in the opinion of almost every football fan, is an extremely healthy and interesting league.

Again, you are using the NFL as a model of derision when estimating competitiveness, which is rather absurd.

Your last comment about having a higher standard is pretty hopefull. How is your standard higher when it's your wish to give your team a financial advantage. Why not simply endorse cheating as well?

 

[quat]

Which teams are the ones now who play a high tempo, more offensive game? THey can becuase they have alot of good players. A cap prevents a team from alot of good players.

Yes, talent would be spread more evenly around the league. But if each team has 2 or 3 pretty good players and the rest are average at best(which is what looks like in the NFL) then quality of play suffers greatly.

They could crack down or crack up on the obstruction all they want. It won't increase the quality of play, because it can't increase the quality of the players.

Hmm, I wonder... the Oilers play an uptempo game (again), and are drafting in that direction, the Canucks as per Burke's five year plan used an uptempo style to draw the fans back, all the while cutting substantial $'s from the payroll.

Clutching and grabbing is an issue that has to be delt with regardless of the outcome of the new CBA. How about players have to keep their hands on their sticks or something novel like that? Obviously there can be more done to address the obvious problems intereference, clutching, grabbing and mugging are bringing to the game.

 

[quat]

An interesting choice. Canada vs USSR in 72. The greatest players accumulated on two opposing teams. And these give rise to the most memorable games. The games between great teams. These are the series we remember. The games we look forward to in the playoffs. Those unplug the phone match-ups of two titans with star power. Thats what draws in the ratings. Those are the teams we want. In the good old days, there were lots of bad teams. But we remember the great teams of the era.

The great Boston teams
The great Montreal teams
The great Islander teams
The great Flyer teams
The great Oiler teams
The great Penguin teams

You know which ones im speaking of dont you?

? Perhaps you should think on this a little more. Not one of these teams had any financial advantage, and became great (Flyers? great? I dunno... infamous might be better..), because they were well organized and well run. If anything, this would point more in the direction that financial parity would ultimately bring back this kind of hockey.

Initially I agree that with somekind of link between salary and revenue there may be a fair amount of movement... but after that, I don't really see it. I doubt many players are going to book to another city for what may be a rather small increase in salary. NO team is going to suddenly offer a player five plus million after a single season of good play. No, the guys that will be earning the bigger $'s will have proven they can do it for a number of years. It would be way to risky for a GM to throw that kind of cash (the way they can now), on players that may or may not workout.

I'm not saying there won't be a change in the league, but the fact is there needs to be some kind of change, and saying this or the other thing will definitely happen is patently absurd.

 

[SENSible1*]

As far as high talent teams right now, I'd go with Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia, Tampa, and thats about it. There are other teams with a decent amount of talent, but probably not to that level.

Ottawa has more talent than any team on that list.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Ottawa most talented but most underachieving

I agree, Ottawa is more talented than those teams listed, overall. Of course, talent doesn't mean much when you choke every year to a old Toronto team that peaks in the 2nd round... Then again the Sens arent much better.

Tampa is obviously very skilled, they have less skilled players, but a better goalie and Lecavalier made a difference. Ottawa does not have a clear cut leader like him... so that works against us as well. But overall we are the most talented team, and one of the biggest underachieving teams as well.

 

[mzon]

Yes talent will be spread out more. But no one team will be great.

There might be more talent than ever in the NFL, but the quality of play has never been worse becuase that talent is not concentrated among the top teams.

It has nothign to do with me hating the NFL. I think the quality of play in the NFL is pretty low, and I put alot of the balme on the cap. It has nothing to do with which teams I like. I don't like Montreal or the Islanders, but I wouldn't think it was fair if their dynasties were ripped apart by a cap. If they built the best teams, then they should win. I think whoever has the best team should win, and the gaol should be to build the best team.

No one team will be great? Have you paid any attention to the NFL in the last five years? New England has the best team in the league and they won 2 out of the last 3 Super Bowls. They just finished a 21 game winning streak, the longest in NFL history. The NFL cap is structured so that teams can keep their franchise players. What it prevents is one or two owners from trying to buy all the high priced free-agents (Rangers, Yankees, Red Sox). The NHL should try to emulate as much of the NFL CBA as they can.

 

[degroat*]

All a cap would do increase the mediocrity more. Look at the NFL. A cap prevents any team from sustaining success. This is lost on alot of people here I think.

That is a complete lie. There are plenty of teams that can sustain success in the NFL and that is relative to their management. Many teams have sustained 5 year runs where they are very competitive and that is plenty.

That said, if a cap did increase mediocrity, who cares? Mediocrity means more teams have a chance to win which means increased fan support in those markets that need to grow.

Now that we've got those two tidbits out of the way, how about we discuss your real reason for being anti-cap. You know that your Wings won't be able to have a payroll twice that of other teams. You know that it'll increase the chances of our precious team once again being the doormat of the league.

It's actually quite sad that so many fans want what's best for themselves and not for the league as a whole.

 

[degroat*]

I hold my team to higher standards.

Exactly.

I, on the other hand, want what's best for the NHL.

 

[SENSible1*]

It's actually quite sad that so many fans want what's best for themselves and not for the league as a whole.

It is especially sad coming from Sens fans who should know better with our history of financial struggles, but who would be willing to sell the league down the tubes simply because they mistakenly believe that a cap will see their team dispersed prematurely.

 

[hockeytown9321]

How would you suggest making the poorest teams closer to the best? They already have the advantage of higher draft picks. What else can be done, aside from leveling the financial playing field, to make the sport fair? If all you're looking for is the next dynasty, then the cap isn't going to do you any good, but if you want teams to go into each season with a fair chance to compete, then the cap helps move towards that objective.

One of my solutions is 100% revenue sharing. Every cent that each team makes gets divided 30 ways. This would hurt the Red Wings more than anybody, so yeah making sure they can continue to "buy" championships is obviously my only concern.

 

[hockeytown9321]

That is a complete lie. There are plenty of teams that can sustain success in the NFL and that is relative to their management. Many teams have sustained 5 year runs where they are very competitive and that is plenty.

That said, if a cap did increase mediocrity, who cares? Mediocrity means more teams have a chance to win which means increased fan support in those markets that need to grow.

Now that we've got those two tidbits out of the way, how about we discuss your real reason for being anti-cap. You know that your Wings won't be able to have a payroll twice that of other teams. You know that it'll increase the chances of our precious team once again being the doormat of the league.

It's actually quite sad that so many fans want what's best for themselves and not for the league as a whole.

Please see what I wrote about revenue sharing above. Thanks.

 

[degroat*]

What you said about revenue sharing is irrelevent. Unless you're proposing the leauge shares 100% of its revenues equally among all 30 teams you know full well that the Wings would still have a monetary advantage and that's what you are out for.

 

[hockeytown9321]

It seems what you are talking about, what you are worried about, is "your" team being no longer able to be among the elite for an unlimited length of time, rather than good competitive hockey across the board. Well, fair enough, but why not speak your mind directly. IE you are worried first and formost about your team and don't care about the others.

Personally, I would rather have an extremely competitive league that rewards teams that draft, manage and coach very well. Historically, this would be a crappy thing to wish for as a Canucks fan, because they pretty much have always sucked in this regard... but so it goes.

I must add however, that you still haven't proven your point at all. You have a very vague hypothothis about the effects of a cap by using the NFL as a template. It "may" prove that it's very difficult for teams to sustain a champion over the course of years (or it may not), but it certainly doesn't address the issue of mediocrity. The NFL is extremely competitive and in the opinion of almost every football fan, is an extremely healthy and interesting league.

Again, you are using the NFL as a model of derision when estimating competitiveness, which is rather absurd.

Your last comment about having a higher standard is pretty hopefull. How is your standard higher when it's your wish to give your team a financial advantage. Why not simply endorse cheating as well?

What i am worried about is that if a team drafts and trades well they will be forced to choose between their good players becuase of a cap. I don't think its fair. I have never said the current system should stay or that there don't need to be changes. If they could come up with a cap like the NBA's that allows you to go over to resign your own players, I'd be all for it.

Yes the NFL might be very healthy and interesting and competitive, but that doesn't mean the actual football is great. Just like hockey in the 80's. There was a higher standard of play. I think most hockey fans would rather the game be played the way it was then than the way it is now. Right now, NHL is more competitive than ever, but the overall standard of play is alot lower than it used to be.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Stitch is right, revenue sharing, even if completely equally divided, would not address the problem of owners who gladly lose money, likely a tax writeoff against other businesses that ends up costing them very little, so could still buy up as many players as they chose to.

 

[hockeytown9321]

What you said about revenue sharing is irrelevent. Unless you're proposing the leauge shares 100% of its revenues equally among all 30 teams you know full well that the Wings would still have a monetary advantage and that's what you are out for.

Yes, I am proposing each team share its revenue 100%.

 

[Mothra]

A cap punishes teams with good drafting and good development becuase those teams won't be able to fit those players under a cap.

How do you figure that...if anything I would say it makes drafting and development more critical than ever......to use your lame NFL analogies (which just dont work.....its just too different of a sport) you hear ALL the time that in todays NFL drafing is more critical than ever

Its your young players that will need to step up and fill roles vacated by departing FA's

 

[Jaded-Fan]

How do you figure that...if anything I would say it makes drafting and development more critical than ever......to use your lame NFL analogies (which just dont work.....its just too different of a sport) you hear ALL the time that in todays NFL drafing is more critical than ever

Its your young players that will need to step up and fill roles vacated by departing FA's

Damn it, stop making me agree with you . . . it just is not . . .natural . . .

 

[mzon]

What i am worried about is that if a team drafts and trades well they will be forced to choose between their good players becuase of a cap. I don't think its fair. I have never said the current system should stay or that there don't need to be changes. If they could come up with a cap like the NBA's that allows you to go over to resign your own players, I'd be all for it.

Yes the NFL might be very healthy and interesting and competitive, but that doesn't mean the actual football is great. Just like hockey in the 80's. There was a higher standard of play. I think most hockey fans would rather the game be played the way it was then than the way it is now. Right now, NHL is more competitive than ever, but the overall standard of play is alot lower than it used to be.

Actually I think most fans would say the NFL's quality of play is at an all time high. Just like every others sport, the athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster. A salary cap does not degrade the quality of play. Players know that they cannot simply whore themselves out to the highest bidders because each team has work within the structure of the cap. The other part that people have failed to mention is that NFL teams must send a certain percentage of revenue on player salaries. Even with all these restrictions there are good teams (Pats, Eagles, Steelers) and very bad teams (Bears, Cardinals, 49ers). The NFL is not packed full of 8-8 teams. Besides the Rangers prove every year that is not possible to buy a championship, or in their case a playoff spot.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Actually I think most fans would say the NFL's quality of play is at an all time high. Just like every others sport, the athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster. A salary cap does not degrade the quality of play. Players know that they cannot simply whore themselves out to the highest bidders because each team has work within the structure of the cap. The other part that people have failed to mention is that NFL teams must send a certain percentage of revenue on player salaries. Even with all these restrictions there are good teams (Pats, Eagles, Steelers) and very bad teams (Bears, Cardinals, 49ers). The NFL is not packed full of 8-8 teams. Besides the Rangers prove every year that is not possible to buy a championship, or in their case a playoff spot.

Actually, the NFl is packed full of 8-8 teams. Between 1983 and 92, the number of teams at or within a game of .500 was exactly equal to the number of teams with more than 9 wins or less than 7. Between 1994 and 2003 38% of NFL teams finished 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7. Thats a five percent increase since the cap was put in. It might not sound like a lot, but it really is. In each season between 83 and 92, an average of 9 teams finished at or near .500. Sine, its an average of 12. Look at the number of good to very good seasons any team had before the cap and look at them now. There's not one team that has been able to sustain over a long period of time.

Yes there are good teams in the NFL. There are two problems though: For the most part, the good teams change every year becuase they can't sustain themselves and the good teams now are nowhere near as good as the good teams of past eras. In 100 years, people are going to look at a list of SuperBowl champs and think that the 2002 Bucs were as good as the 1982 49'ers. I don't want that to happen to the Stanley Cup.

Like I said, if you what you want is for every team to maybe have a 2-3 year window to win and then they're done for another 10 years, fine. Thats your opinion, and if you think thats best, then great. I look at all the great teams that took a long time to build and think that if they had to deal with a cap, they never would've had the chance to be great.