Is an uneven playing field indefensible?

[nyr7andcounting]

Of course more than sixty thousand homes would tune into a Ranger final. In 2002 two hundred thousands homes tuned into the one Islander-Leaf game Msg put on television. I have no idea why you would think more fans would tune in here than another US market, other US markets do not have the enormous year-round attention these baseball teams have.


I'm not picking on the Rangers. I am looking at the example of a team in New York spending pretty much all they can and even with several star players still play in relative obscurity vs it's sports competition.

In other markets if a team spent like this they would be considered a league-wide draw and likely dominate their sports region and attention, win or lose. That has not happened here.

Other markets are not struggling under these kinds of circumstances. I think it proves that New York City cannot drive the hockey landscape. I think those that suggest this either do not reside here or only remember the past.

Where else the attention goes is meaningless when it comes to the playoffs and the finals of any sport. As you said look at what that one Islanders playoff game got and consider that was the first round of the playoffs. If the Rangers were consistently a good team and/or went deep into the playoffs one year the ratings would be fine.

"I have no idea why you would think more fans would tune in here than another US market"

Because there are more friggin people! I am talking about straight up number of homes tuned into a game, and the number of bars should also be considered because when NY teams are in the playoffs soooo many people do go to bars in order to watch the most important games. I am not saying that a greater percentage of people in NY would tune in as opposed to any other market. But the overall amount of people watching the game would be greater simply because of the amout of people that reside in this area.

 

[ColinM]

but DR stated they were worthless because they were overpaid and didn't work out

those players would ahve done wonders for smaller market teams

They would have a minimal to counterproductive impact in a small market. If you didn't have Lang or Kovalev on your team you wouldn't have a pilon taking his spot. Through good scouting and development a small market team can find a productive player within their own organization who can be very productive.

those prospects need to earn their time, if they can't beat out the UFA you bring in then they have no business on the team

PLAYERS EARN THEIR TIME ON THE ICE, IT CANNOT BE GIVEN TO THEM

This is a bad philosphy to use for any team that is not close to winning a Cup. I'm not suggesting that you have to give alot of icetime to a player because he is your first round draft pick but you have to offer icetime to your team's prospects. These types of players can potentially give you 8 to 10 years of solid hockey where as your typical 31 year old has no where to go but down since age is not on their side. Few prospects might develop into the NHL in a given year but with proper management a small market team stands a much better chance of that prospect developing on their team.

The Rangers futility wasn't just bad luck. They failed incorporate young players into their lineup after their team had gone bad. The result is missing the playoffs for 7 years running.

 

[LordHelmet]

Some gopod discussion thus far. But thus far none of the anti-cap people have answered the basic question, why a Cap would be bad for the game.

Simple.

1) The owners want a cap because it will virtually guarantee their profits. Many people say that business owners deserve to make profits. I disagree. Owners deserve the opportunity to make profits. Whether they make those profits or not should depend on the decisions that they make. A cap would allow an owner to turn a profit without any regard to the quality of the product.

2) Player movement. First, markets are built. To build a successful market, you need to have a) notable players acheiving b) on-ice success c) over a period of several years. A cap works against that formula. Once players achevie noteriety, their value goes up and the team that brought them up is less likely to be able to afford them.

Dallas is the perfect example. Texans ignored hockey until the Stars showed up. Now Texas has more professional teams than any other state or province in North America. People continually heard about Modano's great shot, Hatcher's big hits, and Belfour's big saves. Eventually, they wanted to see what it was all about. Result = butts in seats and a strong fan base. You can point to the decline in the Dallas market as further evidence. As a) some notable players departed and others b) acheived less success for c) longer periods of time, attendance softened.

I'll post some more tomorrow.. I gotta go for now..

 

[thinkwild]

Looking through the list of Stanley Cup winners back to the 20's, one of the things we notice is that hockey has always had dynasty's. Yet never before was their complaints about it until owners claimed it was making them lose money. I sense the reason there is so much fear is the thought that the uneven playing field on its own is causing the leagues financial problems. I dont think you can make all 30 teams think they have a chance, the bottom 8-10 each year still wont be convinced.

Sports is not always about even playing fields, its taking advantage of your strengths. A financial advantage in a system with restricted free agency is not so much to overcome, as we witness over and over again. Its an easy tangible thing to latch onto, the year over year payroll numbers. But the even playing field arises because the best teams have the money to spend, and the worst teams get the best draft picks to develop. There is a cycle. If Nashvilles youngsters develop and get 50 playoff gates in the next half dozen years, while Colorado misses the playoffs, then their roles will reverse.

The uneven playing field each year is easily defensible as long as over the long run every team has equal chance to develop into a great team making great extra playoff revenue. The view seems to be more prevalent too lately which i think is cool. I think this perspective can co-exist with a rational relationship between revenues and expenses too.

 

[djhn579]

Looking through the list of Stanley Cup winners back to the 20's, one of the things we notice is that hockey has always had dynasty's. Yet never before was their complaints about it until owners claimed it was making them lose money. I sense the reason there is so much fear is the thought that the uneven playing field on its own is causing the leagues financial problems. I dont think you can make all 30 teams think they have a chance, the bottom 8-10 each year still wont be convinced.

Sports is not always about even playing fields, its taking advantage of your strengths. A financial advantage in a system with restricted free agency is not so much to overcome, as we witness over and over again. Its an easy tangible thing to latch onto, the year over year payroll numbers. But the even playing field arises because the best teams have the money to spend, and the worst teams get the best draft picks to develop. There is a cycle. If Nashvilles youngsters develop and get 50 playoff gates in the next half dozen years, while Colorado misses the playoffs, then their roles will reverse.

The uneven playing field each year is easily defensible as long as over the long run every team has equal chance to develop into a great team making great extra playoff revenue. The view seems to be more prevalent too lately which i think is cool. I think this perspective can co-exist with a rational relationship between revenues and expenses too.

Until 1967/68, the NHL never had more than 10 teams and only had more than 8 teams for 8 years between 1917 and 1967. With fewer teams, there is a higher probability of having one team dominate for an extended stretch of time.

http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlhistory/nhlhistory.html

Edit: The fact that there was no draft may have played a role in the dynasties of old also...


The NHL Amateur Draft was instituted in 1963 in order to break the existing NHL teams' monopoly on junior players, gained by the NHL Sponsorship System. Prior to the draft players were claimed by NHL teams based on the junior teams they played for. If an NHL team sponsored a junior team and a player was on that team, their rights belonged to the NHL team and the player could not play for any NHL team except the sponsor.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/draftindex.html

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

1) The owners want a cap because it will virtually guarantee their profits. Many people say that business owners deserve to make profits. I disagree. Owners deserve the opportunity to make profits. Whether they make those profits or not should depend on the decisions that they make. A cap would allow an owner to turn a profit without any regard to the quality of the product.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=123277

 

[LordHelmet]

MF.. from the post you linked to.. (this should probably be posted in there..)

league revenues in 2003 were $1.996 billion. Player salaries were $1.494 billion and operating costs were $775 million. This lead to a $273 million loss for the league. Assuming a 54% salary cap is put into place and revenues and operating costs stay the same, player salaries will be $1.078 billion and the owners will see a profit of $143 million (8.5% of revenues.)

Maybe "guarantee" is too strong of word, but not by much. Revenues won't be cut in half with the real players on the ice. Operating expenses are much easier to manage, and there are a few ideas - that both sides agree on - to reduce those costs (a shorter schedule that provides for less travel-intensive road trips..)

 

[copperandblue]

Looking through the list of Stanley Cup winners back to the 20's, one of the things we notice is that hockey has always had dynasty's. Yet never before was their complaints about it until owners claimed it was making them lose money.

I never really understood why this gets thrown up as an arguement.

How do you define dynasty and when do you consider the last one to have ended?

It seems to me that we haven't seen one in 15 years which would obviously include the entire duration of the last CBA so where does this enter the picture in terms of a new CBA going forward.

Unless your saying that there shouldn't be any dynasties......

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

Maybe "guarantee" is too strong of word, but not by much. Revenues won't be cut in half with the real players on the ice. Operating expenses are much easier to manage, and there are a few ideas - that both sides agree on - to reduce those costs (a shorter schedule that provides for less travel-intensive road trips..)

I agree that revenues probably won't be cut in half, but a lot of the doomsayers think it could happen so I threw that out there as a potential scenario. Like I said in that other post, assuming a 54% cap and operating expenses staying the same, revenues would have to be $1.685 billion for the league to break even. That's only a 15.6% decrease in revenues - not unfathomable given the ill will this lockout may have generated with fans.

Operating expenses can be managed, but considering the league claims to have been losing money for several years now as salaries have skyrocketed, I'd think they'd have wrangled as much savings out of their cost structure as they could by now.

A shorter schedule will reduce operating costs, but don't forget it will also reduce ticket and concession revenues.

 

[thinkwild]

I never really understood why this gets thrown up as an arguement.

How do you define dynasty and when do you consider the last one to have ended?

It seems to me that we haven't seen one in 15 years which would obviously include the entire duration of the last CBA so where does this enter the picture in terms of a new CBA going forward.

Unless your saying that there shouldn't be any dynasties......

I throw it up as an argument because the thread is asking if an uneven playing field is defensible. But the league has never had an even playing field. And it has never been questioned until owners wanted a salary cap. And want a salary cap, as we all know, not for competitive balance purposes. Yet look at the reasons its wanted, even the premise of the thread.

I have a much looser definition of dynasty than most fans I think. I consider NJ, Det, as dynasties, and Colorado pretty much one too. I think a dynasty needs multiple cups in a 5 year span, not necessarily consecutive, and consistent deep playoff runs during that time. Of course in a 30 team league, a true dynasrty like the Isles or Oilers is near impossible. Det and NJ are 30 team league dynasties.

But its not that they win consecutive cups that is the important part to me, but if Ottawa was so blessed by the hockey Gods to actually win a Cup, and then made the finals again next year, I dont want them busted up because everyone else finds it unfair to compete with them because great teams by definition are unfair and they want to create an uneven playing field, especially if all the playoff revenue they generate makes enough money for the owner to keep the team together.

That it was easier to create dynasties in the past has nothing to do with the fact that they existed and werent complained about, driven by a fear the league will collapse if any teams fans dont think they can win a cup one year.