Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

[overlords]

I saw someone mention that the cap hit of a player should be calculated by after-tax income. Is that something that has actually come up in talks, or just the wishful thinking of a fan?

 

[DAChampion]

I saw someone mention that the cap hit of a player should be calculated by after-tax income. Is that something that has actually come up in talks, or just the wishful thinking of a fan?

Absolute wishful thinking on my part.

I'm really sorry if that wasn't clear !

 

[Forsead]

I saw someone mention that the cap hit of a player should be calculated by after-tax income. Is that something that has actually come up in talks, or just the wishful thinking of a fan?

God that would be helpful for the Canadians team, because now it has been almost 20 years since one has won the cup.

Anybody know if they talk about a smaller minimal team cap, that could help the smaller markets and in the same time lessen crazy contracts given to UFAs.

 

[NORiculous]

The league has not offered a 10 year deal. If both sides can cancel it after 8 years, then it's an 8-year deal.

The fact people are calling it a 10-year deal shows how successful the league is at promoting its propaganda.

.

LOL... You REALLY are trying hard, aren't you. FYI, if you take on a business lease that is 20 years with a 5 years option... Its called a 25 years lease.

So its the same for the CBA but what ever. It goes to show that this deal needs to get signed quick... LOL. I mean debating whar something is CALLED is very funny, IMO.

 

[DAChampion]

LOL... You REALLY are trying hard, aren't you. FYI, if you take on a business lease that is 20 years with a 5 years option... Its called a 25 years lease.

Not if both sides are required to agree to a renewal. At that point it is just a 20-year lease.

This point is not that complex. I'm shocked that this point is difficult to get. It's a (very) simple point. Having both sides needed to agree to a renewal is equivalent to terminating the contract.

Let's try again:

The last CBA expired in summer 2012. But both sides had the option to renew if they both agreed to it, even though that was not written down explicitly.

 

[Kriss E]

I know that a lot of people take health risks. However it is brought up because Kriss E was arguing players are blessed to have the opportunity of amazing health. I merely point out that he is completely wrong, as players do not, on the whole, benefit from amazing health. It's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. The fact other lines of work have even worse problems is besides the point.

Saying that professional athletes have great health as a job benefit is equivalent to saying drug-addicted and bony catwalk models benefit from having sexy bodies. It is a flawed argument on multiple levels.

For me, the argument that players are the beneficiaries of amazing health is right up there (or should I say down there) with the argument that players take zero risks, that players are responsible for the lockout, or that Donald Fehr is the reason the Expos left Montreal.

Actually, I said they have the privilege of being surrounded by some of the best fitness coaches in the world. Apparently that is simply too outstanding of a statement for you.
Once again, I said that a poster (whiskeyseven) brought up the fact these guys have to constantly be in tip top shape as if it was a drag and very few people could handle it. My point was that it was more of a privilege than a drag. Someone else than argued it was more of a necessity or something along those lines (ECWHSWI), to wish I responded, necessity or not, it's still a privilege.
It's very simple to understand, and really, it's sad the length people will go to in order to argue. Are you guys seriously trying to argue that being surrounded by the best trainers in the field of fitness is not a privilege? Do you know how stupid this sounds?
Seriously..
I don't give two craps if it's in the team's best interest to bring forth those surroundings, it's still a damn privilege.

Don't take my word for it, look at the best fighters in the world, that pay for their coaches/trainers, ever listen to them after winning a fight? How it's an honor and privilege to be surrounded by their entourage. It's in their best interest to get the best people around them, they pay for it, yet they still view it as an honor. Same damn thing here.

The fact you are comparing the health of an ATHLETE to the one of a DRUG ADDICTED ANOREXIC catwalk model (who does nothing good for her health) is jaw dropping. Just because a player can suffer an injury doesn't mean his health is absolute garbage. You only speak in extremes.
Really, you are seriously lost. But thanks for laugh.

 

[DAChampion]

I don't give two craps if it's in the team's best interest to bring forth those surroundings, it's still a damn privilege.

You should, because that's the only reason it takes place.

The fact you are comparing the health of an ATHLETE to the one of a DRUG ADDICTED ANOREXIC catwalk model (who does nothing good for her health) is jaw dropping. Just because a player can suffer an injury doesn't mean his health is absolute garbage.

Is the health of former professional athletes "absolute garbage" ???

They have substantially shorter average lifespans:
Professional Football Lineman – 52 years
Professional Boxer – 61 years
Professional Sumo Wrestler – 62 years*
Professional Baseball Player – 64 years
Professional Track & Field Athlete – 77 years
http://drkenromeo.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/which-professional-athlete-lives-the-longest/
This link implies 73 years for ice hockey players:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_lifespan_among_professional_athletes

I'm not sure if those numbers are bad enough to count as "absolute garbage", but they're bad.

Overall, the general medical/physiological picture of pro athletes is not one of privilege, though there are corners to that picture that imply privilege.

The big picture physiologically is 1 step forward and 2 steps back, you're pointing out that the 1 step forward is a privilege. You're correct: the 1-step forward is a privilege.

 

[DAChampion]

You seem to have a very hard time understanding the ''life choice'' idea.

The reason a lot of people (myself, ECSWHI, onesharpmarble, whiskeyseven, etc. etc. etc.) reject your argument that middle-class people "make life choices" and upper-class people "take risks" is that it is not a valid argument.

Everybody makes life choices and everybody takes risks. There is no dichotomy, as many decisions are both life choices and risks. It's not one or the other.

Back in February, I decided to take a job in Australia over similar offers in the USA and in Switzerland. That's not a life choice. That's not a risk. That is both a life choice and a risk. I don't find it confusing ... and neither should you.

 

[AntonCH]

You should, because that's the only reason it takes place.


Is the health of former professional athletes "absolute garbage" ???

They have substantially shorter average lifespans:
Professional Football Lineman – 52 years
Professional Boxer – 61 years
Professional Sumo Wrestler – 62 years*
Professional Baseball Player – 64 years
Professional Track & Field Athlete – 77 years
http://drkenromeo.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/which-professional-athlete-lives-the-longest/
This link implies 73 years for ice hockey players:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_lifespan_among_professional_athletes

I'm not sure if those numbers are bad enough to count as "absolute garbage", but they're bad.

Overall, the general medical/physiological picture of pro athletes is not one of privilege, though there are corners to that picture that imply privilege.

The big picture physiologically is 1 step forward and 2 steps back, you're pointing out that the 1 step forward is a privilege. You're correct, the 1-step forward is a privilege.

Interesting post
Has anyone weighed in with or considered adding to the equation the drugs/performance enhancers that the athletes WILLINGLY take to get to the "bigs" or to stay there?

also, there's the lifestyle that some athletes happily and willing succumb to ie/ drinking drugs and late night partying.
Now it may be part of the culture but its a life choice. If it shortens life span is it due to the sport or the individual?

If a young man wants to be a lineman or a sumo wrestler he must realize that that comes with expectations of size and weight.
Size and weight add to health complications which in turn shorten lives. This is their decision.
Now by extension we are saying due to this they should get paid more? I don't see it.

 

[DAChampion]

Interesting post
Has anyone weighed in with or considered adding to the equation the drugs/performance enhancers that the athletes WILLINGLY take to get to the "bigs" or to stay there?

also, there's the lifestyle that some athletes happily and willing succumb to ie/ drinking drugs and late night partying.
Now it may be part of the culture but its a life choice. If it shortens life span is it due to the sport or the individual?

If a young man wants to be a lineman or a sumo wrestler he must realize that that comes with expectations of size and weight.
Size and weight add to health complications which in turn shorten lives. This is their decision.
Now by extension we are saying due to this they should get paid more? I don't see it.

I would bet that people have looked into the issue of drugs and lifestyle, but we would probably each find failings in the detailed models, as there always are.

Obviously, risk isn't everything. We can all agree that NFL players take the most physiological risks out of the major sports, yet they don't have the largest salaries. This is because of various factors. Chiefly, there is more overall pay for NFL players, but there are more players per team, for 1700 total players (compared to 600 in the NHL), meaning average salary is lower. This simple example shows that risk isn't everything. Conversely, NBA salaries have the highest salaries, for the same reason, few total players.

In terms of players getting "paid more" for their health risks, I just think they should get medical care covered, which is already the case, and that it should be seen as a cost of business and not a privilege.

I'm also refuting the arguments that:
- players take zero risks / pay zero costs
- players have great health as a job benefit / privilege

There are valid arguments for lower salaries (e.g. more parity, greater possibility for expansion), but those two reasons listed above are not among them, as they are both false at worst, unsupported at best.

 

[coolasprICE]

I rather pass on a career in the nhl if it meant enduring brain injuries...the health of my brain is worth more than billions let alone millions

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

I rather pass on a career in the nhl if it meant enduring brain injuries...the health of my brain is worth more than billions let alone millions

Same here.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Seems pretty clear NHL and NHLPA aren't talking same language.

Players have given everything in regards to the previous CBA.

However, owners have surpassed what is considered industry standard in NA major sports.

Owners deem that other leagues are the basis and NHLPA thinks old CBA is the basis. I personally see other leagues as the basis and as such I'm on owners side but if you look at previous CBA its fairly obvious why someone would be on NHLPA's side.

 

[Reiher]

Seems pretty clear NHL and NHLPA aren't talking same language.

Players have given everything in regards to the previous CBA.

However, owners have surpassed what is considered industry standard in NA major sports.

Owners deem that other leagues are the basis and NHLPA thinks old CBA is the basis. I personally see other leagues as the basis and as such I'm on owners side but if you look at previous CBA its fairly obvious why someone would be on NHLPA's side.

This I think is pretty much THE reason for the lockout. And if I was a lawyer and I'm not, it seems to me that Don Fehr is doing everything he can in the best interests of the players, which is to bargain off the old CBA. I also don't think it's necessarily a bad way of going about negotiating a new CBA for the players especially when under that old CBA the league brought in record revenue.

Having said that, I can also see that given the fact that the league is only marginally stable, and I say that because there is 25% (8 teams) of teams losing money, the top 25% of teams are growing the game faster than the bottom can keep up with so that continued model is going to squeeze out the bottom teams under the current CBA with rising cap floors.

I think the players have said they acknowledge and recognize this so they want to see the league fix it with greater revenue sharing. That's all good and dandy but I see from an owners perspective that if they are going to increase revenue sharing a concession especially for the top 25%, then the share of the players must be reduced.

From the players perspective I think this is something that is workable as long as the contracts they currently have will be honored, and thus the make whole. Now the owners want 5 year contract limits, while I think it is not necessarily a bad thing to protect the owners from themselves, I don't see why those owners irresponsibility should be limited. I don't understand why the amount the player is being paid IN that year is not the value counted against the cap. I see that kind of framework as a way to stopping BS cap circumvention. I also see it as a way to limit the benefits of front-loading contracts. From the players point of view though, that is a concession for the star players, but I really don't see why it can't work this way.

The last point of contention is, I think the owners have the right idea in wanting a long-term deal. Why are the players right now concerned with a player that's 13? I mean the upcoming draftees won't have a say in this CBA, they'll have a say in the next one. I don't see a 10 year CBA as a bad thing for either side.

Judging by where the negotiations were headed, I don't think there is much to be debating about. The 50/50 split will happen, I'm not opposed to a transition in which I think in principle the owners have agreed to while the make whole is paid out.

 

[Reiher]

I would bet that people have looked into the issue of drugs and lifestyle, but we would probably each find failings in the detailed models, as there always are.

Obviously, risk isn't everything. We can all agree that NFL players take the most physiological risks out of the major sports, yet they don't have the largest salaries. This is because of various factors. Chiefly, there is more overall pay for NFL players, but there are more players per team, for 1700 total players (compared to 600 in the NHL), meaning average salary is lower. This simple example shows that risk isn't everything. Conversely, NBA salaries have the highest salaries, for the same reason, few total players.

In terms of players getting "paid more" for their health risks, I just think they should get medical care covered, which is already the case, and that it should be seen as a cost of business and not a privilege.

I'm also refuting the arguments that:
- players take zero risks / pay zero costs
- players have great health as a job benefit / privilege

There are valid arguments for lower salaries (e.g. more parity, greater possibility for expansion), but those two reasons listed above are not among them, as they are both false at worst, unsupported at best.

All this stuff about privileges and necessity is really a wash. The players benefit from having all their accommodations, travels, medical, training...ect paid for as do the owners. The owners benefit from their team being given the best chance to win. It is a privilege for the players to have all the perks of being NHLers, but like wise it's a privilege for the owners to have an NHL team with NHLers. I don't see the debate between these two points.


As far as being given the opportunity to be in their place and have all the privileges and burdens of an NHLer/Owner is a personal choice and an opinion that will differ from one person to the other and cannot be used as an argument. What one might perceive as a privilege might actually be ones biggest burden, you can't know.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Seems pretty clear NHL and NHLPA aren't talking same language.

Players have given everything in regards to the previous CBA.

However, owners have surpassed what is considered industry standard in NA major sports.

Owners deem that other leagues are the basis and NHLPA thinks old CBA is the basis. I personally see other leagues as the basis and as such I'm on owners side but if you look at previous CBA its fairly obvious why someone would be on NHLPA's side.

the day the league manages to get decent TV deals (like the NBA, MLB or NFL) I'll probably think the same. Will probably take decades though as it seems to owners that the only way to make their team profitable is to save on salaries.

 

[ECWHSWI]

The reason a lot of people (myself, ECSWHI, onesharpmarble, whiskeyseven, etc. etc. etc.) reject your argument that middle-class people "make life choices" and upper-class people "take risks" is that it is not a valid argument.

Everybody makes life choices and everybody takes risks. There is no dichotomy, as many decisions are both life choices and risks. It's not one or the other.

Back in February, I decided to take a job in Australia over similar offers in the USA and in Switzerland. That's not a life choice. That's not a risk. That is both a life choice and a risk. I don't find it confusing ... and neither should you.

When you see $ as above everything else it's easy to be confused. Owners take financial risks, therefore anything else is somehow below as its just a "life choice"

 

[Kriss E]

When you see $ as above everything else it's easy to be confused. Owners take financial risks, therefore anything else is somehow below as its just a "life choice"

That's not at all what was being discussed.
What was said was owners take the financial risk related to the cost of operating a NhL team. Simple, obvious, and clear.
But for some reason, the ones that have an obvious bias against owners, even that is difficult to admit.
I said, numerous times, owners take the financial risk, players take health risk. You can argue there's a corrolation, however, even in case of a career ending injury, they get every penny their contract guarantees them. So risk is minimal and they had no risk in losing any cash.

So, in order to reach, some decided to compare the decision of a young kid to pursue a career to the financial risk an owner takes running a multimillion dollar business. Not sure why anybody would need explaining as to why this is a ridiculous statement, but still some explained that the choice a kid makes to become a hockey player is no different than the risk the owner takes when he chooses to study in whatever field they go into, or the choice one makes to go into engineer or wtv.
It has absolutely nothing to do with an owner investing over 100M in a business and hoping to generate profit. Nothing. Anybody that still isn't seeing this clearly shouldn't be discussing much.

 

[Kriss E]

You should, because that's the only reason it takes place.


Is the health of former professional athletes "absolute garbage" ???

They have substantially shorter average lifespans:
Professional Football Lineman – 52 years
Professional Boxer – 61 years
Professional Sumo Wrestler – 62 years*
Professional Baseball Player – 64 years
Professional Track & Field Athlete – 77 years
http://drkenromeo.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/which-professional-athlete-lives-the-longest/
This link implies 73 years for ice hockey players:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_lifespan_among_professional_athletes

I'm not sure if those numbers are bad enough to count as "absolute garbage", but they're bad.

Overall, the general medical/physiological picture of pro athletes is not one of privilege, though there are corners to that picture that imply privilege.

The big picture physiologically is 1 step forward and 2 steps back, you're pointing out that the 1 step forward is a privilege. You're correct: the 1-step forward is a privilege.

Meanwhile the life expectancy of an Olympic athlete is higher than the average.
Again, you compared the health of an athlete to the one of a drug addicted anorexic. Talk about an over exaggeration.
Lets get back to what was actually being discussed, the fitness level.
Regardless of whether or not a player suffers long term damaging injuries or not, having some of the best coaches in the world is a privilege. Whether it is worth the injury risk or not is another question.
They worked hard to get where they are, and they deserve that privilege.
Also, I don't consider a 73yo life expectancy to be that bad at all.

 

[uiCk]

the implied number for hockey players, is from 1993 study, and at that time, life expectancy for males in Canada was around 75. 73 in those times is not that off.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health26-eng.htm

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

That's not at all what was being discussed.
What was said was owners take the financial risk related to the cost of operating a NhL team. Simple, obvious, and clear.
But for some reason, the ones that have an obvious bias against owners, even that is difficult to admit.
I said, numerous times, owners take the financial risk, players take health risk. You can argue there's a corrolation, however, even in case of a career ending injury, they get every penny their contract guarantees them. So risk is minimal and they had no risk in losing any cash.

Owners assume a financial risk for sure. There's little doubt about that.

Players though definitely assume a financial risk when becoming a player. No they don't foot the bill for expenses but you can't tell me that there's no risk in foregoing school to pursue their dream. Most of these guys never make it and it's damn near impossible just to become a 4th liner. Absolutely there's a financial risk there, it's just a different kind of risk that's all.

A big reason that players take that risk is because of the pay. It's because they want a career playing hockey and the fans aren't coming to watch Ted Leonsis go one on one with Geoff Molson. They are the talent and should be paid handsomely for what they bring in.

So, in order to reach, some decided to compare the decision of a young kid to pursue a career to the financial risk an owner takes running a multimillion dollar business. Not sure why anybody would need explaining as to why this is a ridiculous statement, but still some explained that the choice a kid makes to become a hockey player is no different than the risk the owner takes when he chooses to study in whatever field they go into, or the choice one makes to go into engineer or wtv.
It has absolutely nothing to do with an owner investing over 100M in a business and hoping to generate profit. Nothing. Anybody that still isn't seeing this clearly shouldn't be discussing much.

It's just a different kind of risk. Certainly it's a financial risk though. These guys are betting their future on it and most of the time it doesn't pay off. Those that do make it deserve to be rewarded for it because they're the guys the fans pay to see.

Bottom line: There's a big pie and there should be enough to go around. The way they're all fiddling over the details is a joke in my opinion.

 

[Forsead]

Owners assume a financial risk for sure. There's little doubt about that.

Players though definitely assume a financial risk when becoming a player. No they don't foot the bill for expenses but you can't tell me that there's no risk in foregoing school to pursue their dream. Most of these guys never make it and it's damn near impossible just to become a 4th liner. Absolutely there's a financial risk there, it's just a different kind of risk that's all.

A big reason that players take that risk is because of the pay. It's because they want a career playing hockey and the fans aren't coming to watch Ted Leonsis go one on one with Geoff Molson. They are the talent and should be paid handsomely for what they bring in.


It's just a different kind of risk. Certainly it's a financial risk though. These guys are betting their future on it and most of the time it doesn't pay off. Those that do make it deserve to be rewarded for it because they're the guys the fans pay to see.

Bottom line: There's a big pie and there should be enough to go around. The way they're all fiddling over the details is a joke in my opinion.

That's something I've seen in the lockout thread and that's a flawed argument, most junior player in Canada are studying while playing. A good exemple is the Quebec city Remparts IIRC that ask their players to actually go to school to play with the team. Yes, maybe they take less courses in cegeps, but I mean who doesn't know someone that took 3 years to complete is cegep and from what I saw that doesn't change anything in their career. If after your junior career you see you don't have any potential to reach the NHL (which a good majority of the players does) well they just start focussing on something else and they are 21, that's doesn't prevent them to anything. Then if someone continue and reach the AHL they will be paid 100 000 playing the sport they love, the ''risk'' already paid out, samething with europeans leagues.

Louis Leblanc took courses at McGill while playing in junior, there is also the NCAA way for anyone that want to study.

I can't tell for the european system thought, I don't know exactly how all work there.

I will never see doing a sport you like as a risk anyway, even if you wish to make a career in it. It's a passion and a pastime. Yes it ask for sacrifice, but there is no passion that isn't. Some play guitar 2 hours each days and in a band on the weekend an wish to make a career out of it, that would be a risk too ? no that's a passion, a pastime. Does the producers should give money to everybody that fails in their music carreer for their ''risk''?

 

[uiCk]

That's something I've seen in the lockout thread and that's a flawed argument, most junior player in Canada are studying while playing. A good exemple is the Quebec city Remparts IIRC that ask their players to actually go to school to play with the team. Yes, maybe they take less courses in cegeps, but I mean who doesn't know someone that took 3 years to complete is cegep and from what I saw that doesn't change anything in their career. If after your junior career you see you don't have any potential to reach the NHL (which a good majority of the players does) well they just start focussing on something else and they are 21, that's doesn't prevent them to anything. Then if someone continue and reach the AHL they will be paid 100 000 playing the sport they love, the ''risk'' already paid out, samething with europeans leagues.

Louis Leblanc took courses at McGill while playing in junior, there is also the NCAA way for anyone that want to study.

I can't tell for the european system thought, I don't know exactly how all work there.

I will never see doing a sport you like as a risk anyway, even if you wish to make a career in it. It's a passion and a pastime. Yes it ask for sacrifice, but there is no passion that isn't. Some play guitar 2 hours each days and in a band on the weekend an wish to make a career out of it, that would be a risk too ? no that's a passion, a pastime. Does the producers should give money to everybody that fails in their music carreer for their ''risk''?

Your more or less confusing your terminology. Every choice contains a risk. Your perception of what the risk or the choice is, does not negate the risks involved. When someone views something as a "passion", he's basically saying that the Benefits of making that specific choice, potentially outweighs the risks, which might be completely different from person to person. In the end, there is a choice, and a risk involved with that choice.
In this case, pursing a career in hockey, can be seen as a "passion", but if you don't make it, the "risk" involved in that choice was that you spent X amount of time doing that "passion" while loosing out advancing in, lets say, your financial career. Wether you lost 1 year, that could result in your total wealth to have lost 50k, or lost more years.
Ones perception over a certain "choice" does not negate the risks involved.

 

[Protest the Hero]

Owners assume a financial risk for sure. There's little doubt about that.

Players though definitely assume a financial risk when becoming a player. No they don't foot the bill for expenses but you can't tell me that there's no risk in foregoing school to pursue their dream. Most of these guys never make it and it's damn near impossible just to become a 4th liner. Absolutely there's a financial risk there, it's just a different kind of risk that's all.

A big reason that players take that risk is because of the pay. It's because they want a career playing hockey and the fans aren't coming to watch Ted Leonsis go one on one with Geoff Molson. They are the talent and should be paid handsomely for what they bring in.


It's just a different kind of risk. Certainly it's a financial risk though. These guys are betting their future on it and most of the time it doesn't pay off. Those that do make it deserve to be rewarded for it because they're the guys the fans pay to see.

Bottom line: There's a big pie and there should be enough to go around. The way they're all fiddling over the details is a joke in my opinion.

The guys that don't make it are not being affected by the CBA, and the guys that do make it, make 5-10 times the amount in one year that their parents spent on them to get there.

It's not a financial risk being an NHL player(key word, NHL). It's hard getting there(physically and financially), no one is arguing that, but these guys forgo school knowing they'll make more playing a game they love than any career they can pursue short of waiting 10-15 years to reach that level of pay.

"They are the talent and should be paid handsomely for what they bring in."

They are, I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

Hamrlik said they should put the last offer to a vote among players, I agree with him.

 

[Kriss E]

Owners assume a financial risk for sure. There's little doubt about that.

Players though definitely assume a financial risk when becoming a player. No they don't foot the bill for expenses but you can't tell me that there's no risk in foregoing school to pursue their dream. Most of these guys never make it and it's damn near impossible just to become a 4th liner. Absolutely there's a financial risk there, it's just a different kind of risk that's all.

A big reason that players take that risk is because of the pay. It's because they want a career playing hockey and the fans aren't coming to watch Ted Leonsis go one on one with Geoff Molson. They are the talent and should be paid handsomely for what they bring in.


It's just a different kind of risk. Certainly it's a financial risk though. These guys are betting their future on it and most of the time it doesn't pay off. Those that do make it deserve to be rewarded for it because they're the guys the fans pay to see.

Bottom line: There's a big pie and there should be enough to go around. The way they're all fiddling over the details is a joke in my opinion.

Do they really? Nobody forces those kids to quite school. Look at guys like Leblanc that make it to Harvard, or Darche who has a degree from McGill. If those guys can get degrees, then why wouldn't others?
Maybe it's more demanding, but it's not like one has to choose one or the other, to the point where they are absolutely screwed if they don't make it.

Also, when does one call it quits? If you haven't made high level junior by 17-18, isn't it over for you? What have they mortgage by that age really?
For those that do make it, get drafted in the NHL, play minor pro, what's their cut off age? 24-25? What's preventing them from going to University and getting a degree?

How is a kid pursuing and quitting school any different than someone going to school (spending about as much, if not more, on tuition+material than a player on hockey related fees) but failing to reach success in wtv field they chose? Everybody goes through those choices. Same as owners. How many kids opt a career in business only to fail?
Bottom line is the owners took the same financial risks as the players did when they grew up and pursued their careers. Difference is, when they reach the top, NHL players do not take any financial risks, the owners do by paying the bill for everything related to the team. Only thing the players risk at the NHL level is health, but like I said, even if they get a career ending injury, they have guaranteed contracts to fall back on.

We agree on there being a big enough pie for everybody to be happy, and the way things have been handled (both sides) is ridiculous.