Smail said:
Noll seems to ignore part of the reasoning behind a cap. With payroll disparity being lesser then now, and with a smaller average salary, teams with lower budget are going to be able to afford better players. Featuring a better team (product), they hope to see a rise in demand and a bigger revenue (both gate and tv revenue). If they can achieve this through a cap, it could make the smaller teams viable.
As for National TV contracts, well if the product on the ice can improve (via better match ups due to better on-ice teams by the lower budget teams) and HD TV really makes the NHL shine, they could get a fairly significant $ amount, which in turn would help the smaller markets.
I'll agree with not completely trusting his views. They should be taken into consideration, but not seen as the truth in a case like this.
Trying to judge an issue on how one economist feels about the situation is not highly recommended. This is an aspect (one very boring aspect) that I know well. I'm not an economist per se, but that is a good part of my skill set.
It is, for the most part, a behavioral science. With a limited set of established rules. Basically, most aspects are open to determination. Back in college, a professor told me an ecomonic axiom that I've seen hold its truth many, many times.
You can put a handful of economists in a room and give them an issue (basic or complex, it won't matter). An hour later, if that long, their opposing views on the situation will turn into a heated argument. Many valid points brought up, but just as many valid rebukes.
A truth when you deal in behavior, there is not always one clear answer. It can, and most certainly will, vary.
Beware the economist point of view.