NHL Union Head: Season May Be Cancelled

[Guest MikeSC]

Pretty sad that the "professionals" are getting paid millions of dollars while college players are putting on better games just for the love of the sport.

The quality of professional athletics is greater than the quality of college athletics. That's not to say that I don't like college sports, because I do. But the best pro teams are better than the best college teams, and thus the games are better and easier to watch and enjoy.

It's also absurd to assume that college athletes play sports solely for the love of the game.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Not necessarily. It sounds like it makes sense, and I'm sure it does in some cases, but there's no way this is universally true.

 

Different athletes have different attitudes. Brett Favre goes out there every day and tries his hardest no matter how much he is being paid. Randy Moss halfasses it.

 

College is a training program. Just as you go to college to get educated about a particular field, athletes go to be trained for the pros. There are other options (minor leagues), but with a very rare exception, athletes simply aren't ready fresh out of high school. College (or another pro league) is a necessary part of development.

[nl5xsk1 0]

HOWEVER, the market can drastically over-value you --- and the NHL is laden with that problem. NOBODY in the league puts any more asses in the seats than anybody else. NOBODY spikes TV ratings. Thus, paying ANYBODY much more than anybody else is a poor business decision.

Hmmm, so it's a big coincidence that when a team like the Flyers or Avalanche come to Boston for a game here, it sells out or at least comes really close, but when a team like the Blue Jackets or Coyotes come, it doesn't? No, of course it's not a coincidence, it's people wanting to see a player like Roenick or Forsberg more than a player like Nash or Gratton. To say that no one puts asses in seats is laughable. Maybe the TV ratings don't spike much, but even that's hard to say when most teams are never shown on TV.

 

And, yes, I can almost predict your response of "well, the TV ratings are worse than Arena Football" but that doesn't mean a Detroit-Colorado game wouldn't draw better than a Columbus-Nashville game; just because both would be below the AFL doesn't mean that there wouldn't be better ratings for the Detroit-Colorado match-up.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmmm, so it's a big coincidence that when a team like the Flyers or Avalanche come to Boston for a game here, it sells out or at least comes really close, but when a team like the Blue Jackets or Coyotes come, it doesn't?  No, of course it's not a coincidence, it's people wanting to see a player like Roenick or Forsberg more than a player like Nash or Gratton.  To say that no one puts asses in seats is laughable.  Maybe the TV ratings don't spike much, but even that's hard to say when most teams are never shown on TV.

Those teams don't sell out everywhere. Honestly, at this point, the team draws more than the players.

 

There are no Jordans or Iversons. There are no Bonds. There are no Vicks. There is nobody who you can point to and say "Well, HE'LL put an ass in the seat". The league has overvalued the players. The players cost more than the revenue they generate --- a business model that has never worked.

And, yes, I can almost predict your response of "well, the TV ratings are worse than Arena Football" but that doesn't mean a Detroit-Colorado game wouldn't draw better than a Columbus-Nashville game; just because both would be below the AFL doesn't mean that there wouldn't be better ratings for the Detroit-Colorado match-up.

The NHL can't survive with only a few teams. It'll have players STILL expecting the same money --- and LESS revenue coming in.

-=Mike

[nl5xsk1 0]

The NHL can't survive with only a few teams. It'll have players STILL expecting the same money --- and LESS revenue coming in.

But that contradicts your statment that no one is overpaid, and that people are paid what the market will bear. If the market value for an average player is $1.5 million dollars, regardless of how many or how few teams there are, an average player will earn $1.5 million, no more & no less. If the players are too adament that they'll play for $4.5 million or nothing, then they'll be paid nothing.

 

And as a hockey fan, I'm baffled that you'd say that there aren't any players that put asses in seats. There's a reason that I didn't reference Atlanta (Kovalchuk), Calgary (Iginla) and Minnesota (Gaborik) when I wanted to refer to teams that aren't traditionally a big draw. Because as a hockey fan, I go to games to see players like the three that I just mentioned, and thus, feel that they do put asses in seats. Does it make Joe Fan, who doesn't care about hockey regardless of who's playing, want to go? No. But one of the things that's put hockey behind the eight-ball like this is sucking up to Joe Fan compared to appeasing the die-hard hockey fans that have been around forever. Their little "emulate the NBA" experiment has bombed.

Edited June 15, 2004 by nl5xsk1

[stahl 0]

HOWEVER, the market can drastically over-value you --- and the NHL is laden with that problem. NOBODY in the league puts any more asses in the seats than anybody else. NOBODY spikes TV ratings. Thus, paying ANYBODY much more than anybody else is a poor business decision.

 

That is not true at all. Every sport has stars that draw, even hockey. If Mario Lemieux wasn't playing hockey, Pittsburgh would most likely fold, and they may even with him there. I recall attendence rising considerably when he played, and when he got injured, the crowds fell to smackdown house show levels. Granted, the team does suck, but they still sucked when Lemieux was in the lineup.

[Guest MikeSC]

But that contradicts your statment that no one is overpaid, and that people are paid what the market will bear.  If the market value for an average player is $1.5 million dollars, regardless of how many or how few teams there are, an average player will earn $1.5 million, no more & no less.  If the players are too adament that they'll play for $4.5 million or nothing, then they'll be paid nothing.

I never said a soul was overpaid. If you can GET the money, you're not overpaid.

 

HOWEVER, the NHL has a problem with paying guys FAR more than they bring in. That is simply a horrible business model.

And as a hockey fan, I'm baffled that you'd say that there aren't any players that put asses in seats.  There's a reason that I didn't reference Atlanta (Kovalchuk), Calgary (Iginla) and Minnesota (Gaborik) when I wanted to refer to teams that aren't traditionally a big draw.  Because as a hockey fan, I go to games to see players like the three that I just mentioned, and thus, feel that they do put asses in seats.  Does it make Joe Fan, who doesn't care about hockey regardless of who's playing, want to go?  No.  But one of the things that's put hockey behind the eight-ball like this is sucking up to Joe Fan compared to appeasing the die-hard hockey fans that have been around forever.

Unfortunately, the NHL has to suck up to the casuals in order to create more die-hards --- as the die-hards, clearly, aren't enough to keep the league afloat.

Their little "emulate the NBA" experiment has bombed.

Emulating the NBA is idiotic as the NBA is not something that should be copied. Copy a successful league --- the NFL.

-=Mike

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Here's the thing. Instead of a salary cap, why don't the owners simply offer contracts in range of what they are able to pay?

[Red Baron 0]

Mike: That was a very broad statement about every sport. Each has their casual fans, whether it is Hockey, Football, Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, etc... Most of the fans in the seat are the diehards, that live and die by their colours they represent (no fan does it better than Soccer fans).

 

Al: Thats the reason why they have Unions, so players don't get "screwed" out of what they deserve and pension (if Canadian)

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Al: Thats the reason why they have Unions, so players don't get "screwed" out of what they deserve and pension (if Canadian)

 

Its nothing to do with Unions here. Its just a matter of what you can afford. If you are getting hosed because you are paying too much in player contracts, you are either A. Financially incompetant, or B. Lying out your ass about your teams finances. Why would you offer X Money in contracts when your revenue won't reach that? And since its all around the NHL, the salary scale should reflect that.

 

I'm no expert on the NHL. I'd just like to see a reliable, independant assessment of the NHL's financial issues before I buy into their woes.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Well, I know that outside of Toronto, I buy that all the Canadian teams plus Buffalo and Pittsburgh are in financial difficulty. Considering the boneheaded stuff they've done recently.

 

That's 7 teams already right there. That's 7 too many.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Here's the thing. Instead of a salary cap, why don't the owners simply offer contracts in range of what they are able to pay?

It'd be difficult to close Pandora's Box without the union screaming about collusion. The owners would need to agree to limit spending, or run the risk of one team going against the other 29 and offering a huge salary to a certain player. There'd need to be an agreement that no team would offer any player a salary of more than $X-million, and no team would spend more than #Y-million in total. Once the owners agree to this, it'd be collusion and the NHLPA would take them to court and probably win. There needs to be an agreement between the players and the owners, and that doesn't seem to be likely.

 

And, Mike, I agree with you, the NBA is a horrible league to emulate. But, unfortunately, Bettman didn't work for the NFL, he worked for the NBA, and thus that's the mentality that he has. The league was in a better position before the most recent expansions ... even without the TV deal that it just enjoyed.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike: That was a very broad statement about every sport. Each has their casual fans, whether it is Hockey, Football, Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, etc... Most of the fans in the seat are the diehards, that live and die by their colours they represent (no fan does it better than Soccer fans).

Red, how do you develop die-hards?

 

By attracting casuals who become hooked.

 

The NHL needs more fans desperately. They need to attract casuals in the hopes of creating die-hards.

Here's the thing. Instead of a salary cap, why don't the owners simply offer contracts in range of what they are able to pay?

Doesn't work too well. All the "stars" would go to the big-market teams while the small-market teams are left to wither on the vine.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Here's the thing.  Instead of a salary cap, why don't the owners simply offer contracts in range of what they are able to pay?

Because not all the teams are in terrible shape, only most of them. All the top teams, like the Leafs or Red Wings, will snap up all the talent. Fan interest in the other teams will get even worse, thus meaning that they have to lower salaries even more, and the cycle continues until those teams no longer exist and we are left with a four team league. If the owners were united (which they aren't), then your plan would work. The owners are too greedy, the players take what they can get, the fans get screwed, and the league goes bankrupt because they are paying more than they are making.

 

The fans are more important than either the owners or the players and it is something that both sides need to remember. Without them going to the games, there is no money coming in. And unfortunately a salary-cap is needed to keep stars on particular teams. The NFL is by far the most successful league for a reason. Players move around a lot, but rarely the top stars unless they wear out their welcome (Terrell Owens). If it was run like MLB, Peyton Manning & Randy Moss would be on the Redskins by now.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The NFL is by far the most successful league for a reason. Players move around a lot, but rarely the top stars unless they wear out their welcome (Terrell Owens). If it was run like MLB, Peyton Manning & Randy Moss would be on the Redskins by now.

 

And the Arizona Cardinals could have kept David Boston. I maintain MLB's system is the best one out there, because its the only one where teams are rewarded for developing their own players.

 

In baseball, teams retain control of their talent for six years. That is what keeps competitive balance alive in baseball. It's a tremendously successful system, and I'm surprised no other league emulates it. It could be ideal for hockey, which unlike the NFL, has franchise-controlled minor league teams.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

And the Arizona Cardinals could have kept David Boston.

 

He was injury-prone and has an attitude problem. Their WRs are better now than they were with him there. Boldin is a more than adequate replacement.

[Red Baron 0]

Mike:

 

How do you develop die-hards without media attention. The sport itself has been pretty good in the past three years. If the media attention isn't there, then you can attract casual fans.

 

Al:

 

That is the reason why they do have unions. If it wasn't for unions, we would have 30 Harold Ballards running the league, and no one would really want that. (meaning that they'll do everything to make the buck, whether taking away the best players for Nothing...see late 70's Maple Leafs)

 

Flik:

 

Phili has admitted that they are losing money, he'll I wont be surprised that almost every Canadian team this year, turned a profit, and the only team that didn't this year, would be Edmonton. With the stronger Canadian dollar, it should be easier for Canadian teams to make profit, and Ottawa in stable financial situation, Canadian teams are very strong. Phili, and southern teams like Phoenix, Anaheim, LA, Florida, Carolina, Atlanta, St. Louis are probably losing money, and Buffalo (any sport in Buffalo) has to depend on Canadians for at least some type of profit

[The Czech Republic 0]

If it wasn't for unions, we would have 30 Harold Ballards running the league, and no one would really want that. (meaning that they'll do everything to make the buck, whether taking away the best players for Nothing)

As it is right now, we only have one of those. (Wirtz)