Obviously, we're all sour about this whole lockout issue. I usually run a hockey pool with participants across Western Canada, and NHL hockey is a healthy distraction from my studies at school. However, I think it's important that more people try to make an effort to look at this situation through a more impartial lens. It's easy to side with the owners. The owners are fighting for a system that makes fans (especially small market fans) almost giddy. Could you imagine the Flames and Hurricanes playing on a level playing field with the Rangers and Red Wings? The idea definitely has it's appeal. However, is that a good way to make decisions, and form opinions? Or should we look deeper? I'd like to think that most people look at the principles involved and try to decide what is fair, and what feels like the right decision, rather than simply looking at what benefits me. Imagine a "salary cap" business environment. Poor teams would be more competitive. Great. However, the Detroits, Colorados, and New Yorks of the league would be making a HUGE amount of money, as they have no opportunity to return these revenues to the players. They're not allowed to. It's a world where players are not making money relative to the revenue they generate. Rather, they're limited by an artificial barrier. Sure, it's out of the ordinary that 75% of revenues go to player salaries, but consider the industry they're in. Who is providing the value? Is it the owner, that invests the capital? Or is it the player, who trains for a lifetime, and often plays through severe injury to win? Look at movie stars... Brad Pitt, the cast of Friends. Look at the money they're making. They're being compensated for the amount of revenue they generate. NHL players deserve the same, don't they? Sure, the NHL would have much more exciting rivalries under a salary cap system, and that benefits us, as fans, a heck of a lot. But, does that make it right? My gut tells me no.