NHL to Cancel Season

[Guest acnx]

This is just so fucked up, and I don't see any resolution in sight. Chances are, the sides won't say a word to each other until we're about to cancel next season.

 

The NHL is planning for the 2005-06 season, and will pursue more labour talks but Bettman warned the league is going to have to look at a "completely different economic model and it is going to have to have linkage (between revenue and player salary costs)."

 

"The best deal that was on the table is now gone," he added.

 

That's from TSN.

 

So what now? There are too many legal problems for them to consider replacement players, and as Al has said, if they do, the NHLPA will challenge it, and will definitely win, because the only group that has made any attempt to get this settled during this whole fucking stupid bullshit negotiation process, has been the union.

 

What a fucking joke. Fuck Gary Bettman. Fuck the owners for not keeping their dicks in their pants whenever a free agent hit the market. Fuck them all for not giving a shit about the fans.

 

Bunch of bullshit.

[Guest cosbywasmurdered]

I've gotten 10 calls from my friends cursing out the NHL and all involved parties. I expect another 30. I think everyone in Canada is on the phone crying.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

There's an insane article over at TSN about what happens next. Great read.

 

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=9941

 

I love all the stuff about possible replacement players. It'll be interesting to see every American team with only American players, and no Montreal Canadiens for a season. Well, interesting like a train wreck involving orphans, but still.

[Guest acnx]

There's an insane article over at TSN about what happens next. Great read.

 

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=9941

Great read for information.

 

To sum up: the NHL is fucked.

[iggymcfly 0]

It's funny, everybody was saying they had to make a deal at this point, but deep down, I had a really strong feeling that they weren't going to.

 

The thing that really got me was when they were saying on ESPN that the magic number for the cap was going to be $45-46 million, because I knew that Bettman was way too stubborn to go that high.

 

The players' association would have had to cave hardcore, which I thought they might, and apparently they're not doing it.

[iggymcfly 0]

According to ESPN, the players are all pressuring Goodenow to make one last offer at the NHLPA press conference, and if he does, there is a chance, however slight, that the NHL will still play this year.

 

Oh, and maybe it's just me but it seems like if they did have a season at this point, this could be great publicity for the NHL. If they'd had a season the whole time, I probably would have only watched one or two games tops, and I wouldn't care at all about the rest of the regular season, but if they did play, I'd be really excited to see some hockey.

[2GOLD 0]

But it'll look really bad if they come back to empty arenas.

People may want to see hockey, but are any fans going to want to pay the extreme price for hockey tickets after this?

[Guest acnx]

According to ESPN, the players are all pressuring Goodenow to make one last offer at the NHLPA press conference, and if he does, there is a chance, however slight, that the NHL will still play this year.

The thing is, Bettman said that the final offer was off the table at 11.

 

I want to keep some glimmer of hope, I really do...but fuck, it's over. The whole time, we knew it would come down to this. It's been in our faces for two fucking years, and they did not one god damn thing to stop it, until it was too late. The players are caving, but that's not going to help now that Goodenow didn't accept the final offer from Bettman, because now Bettman and the owners want more.

 

I'm still hoping for a miracle, but this whole thing looks doomed to shit.

[Guest Cerebus]

One question,

 

Why do they keep saying that this was the only time an entire season was cancelled b/c of a labor dispute? Didn't baseball cancel the 94 season because of a labor strike?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

They still played the first half of that season.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

IIRC, baseball played part of that season before it ended abruptly.

[nl5xsk1 0]

According to ESPN, the players are all pressuring Goodenow to make one last offer at the NHLPA press conference, and if he does, there is a chance, however slight, that the NHL will still play this year.

I've said all along that the owners will win this pissing match because the players will blink first. Too many players NEED their NHL salary money to really survive; a lot of the players playing overseas are earning less than they would in the NHL, and some are actually losing money because of insurance and whatnot.

 

Once the smaller players break ranks, the mid-level guys will follow. The "elite" might not come back, but I blame the people like Jagr, Yashin, Pronger, Holik, Guerin, etc, that were making $9-million+ as much as the owners, and thus would be fine without them.

[iggymcfly 0]

The baseball strike is actually worse if you think about it. How the players played 100+ games, and then just decided to quit and not finish through to the World Series is beyond me. You'd think a strike could have waited until the end of the year.

[CanadianChris 0]

The baseball strike is actually worse if you think about it. How the players played 100+ games, and then just decided to quit and not finish through to the World Series is beyond me. You'd think a strike could have waited until the end of the year.

The players had to strike during the season, because that was when they had the most leverage. If they wait until after the season, the owners would have already made their playoff revenue, and their response would've been, "Yeah. Whatever. Let us know if you're coming back. Or not, we don't care."

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I have very little sympathy for the players. First it was with the salary cap deal. Every job in the world has some form of salary cap. You don't go around making what you want, you get pay range like $40,000 - $60,000. Yet the players don't get that for some reason.

 

Umm, that's not a salary cap. The only thing that prevents most people from making above that amount is the amount of labor available at that price range. But that is set by the market. It is NOT artifically restricted. A salary cap sets salaries below market value. If there was some sort of salary cap at $15,000 when your job deserved a $40-60,000 wage, then you would have a salary cap.

 

The second thing with the salary cap is that they accepted. They knew they weren't going to win this time like they did in 1994 yet they still wasted months and months stating there's no way in hell they'll accept a salary cap.

 

Honestly, I think the last minute salary cap proposal was a P.R. move. And they didn't waste months and months. They made good faith offers.

 

The thing about hockey players is that a lot of them just don't get simple economics probably because while they were growing up they were more focused on hockey than education. I know this for a fact as I know a lot of guys who play on teams and hockey is their number one priority.

 

Which group is losing money hand over fist again?

 

On to Canadian Chris...

 

The players had to strike during the season, because that was when they had the most leverage. If they wait until after the season, the owners would have already made their playoff revenue, and their response would've been, "Yeah. Whatever. Let us know if you're coming back. Or not, we don't care."

 

Exactly. The players' have leverage during the season, while the owners have leverage over the offseason. It's a cruel reality of the business of sports, but that's how it works.

[Justice 0]

[Brush with Greatness 0]

QUOTE

The thing about hockey players is that a lot of them just don't get simple economics probably because while they were growing up they were more focused on hockey than education. I know this for a fact as I know a lot of guys who play on teams and hockey is their number one priority.

 

 

Which group is losing money hand over fist again?

 

You conveniently fail to mention that most of the teams that are losing money are virtually forced into it.

 

The teams like the Rangers, Avs, Wings, etc. can afford to pay the top tier players 10 million a season.

 

Now, because of the current economic "market value" system (which you appear to be a big proponent of) once Bobby Holik starts making 10 mil, every Holik calibre player (which is virtually half the league) feels he should be entitled to 10 mil. Teams which can't afford to pay their players this amount of money, have the option of

 

a) signing the player(s) and taking a financial hit. However, the fan base is not alienated. So despite still drawing fans, you are losing big money financially

 

b) not sign the player(s). After a while (and this is where we are getting very close to), the low and mid market teams are raided of all their players. This in turn, pisses off the fans, resulting in small gates and again, the team starts losing money financially (albeit likely a smaller amount depending on the circumstances). See Penguins, Pittsburgh. And the thing is, if the team doesn't sign him he will always find a home elsewhere. See Rangers, New York.

 

So, there you have it.

 

Now you may condone this crap in baseball (I'm not sure why), but in hockey, alot of the small market teams are the ones with fans who actually care passionately about the game.

 

So basically, due to the current economics creating a total lack of parity, hockey crazed centres (not to mention two of the most storied franchises in NHL history) like Edmonton and Montreal virtually have no chance of ever winning a Stanley Cup again.

 

I'm not really sure how this "market value" system that baseball uses is a good thing. If you want to look at the popularity of different sports in North America, one stands far and above the rest and a lot of that has to do with fans going into the season thinking that their team always has a shot at winning the championship, if not this coming season then in a few seasons.

 

I don't really see how a salary cap (especially a fluctuating one like the NHL proposed earlier) hurts the NHL, let alone any sport for that matter.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

You conveniently fail to mention that most of the teams that are losing money are virtually forced into it.

 

Bullshit. Nobody forces a team to spend anything.

 

The teams like the Rangers, Avs, Wings, etc. can afford to pay the top tier players 10 million a season.

 

Now, because of the current economic "market value" system (which you appear to be a big proponent of) once Bobby Holik starts making 10 mil, every Holik calibre player (which is virtually half the league) feels he should be entitled to 10 mil. Teams which can't afford to pay their players this amount of money, have the option of

 

a) signing the player(s) and taking a financial hit. However, the fan base is not alienated. So despite still drawing fans, you are losing big money financially

 

b) not sign the player(s). After a while (and this is where we are getting very close to), the low and mid market teams are raided of all their players. This in turn, pisses off the fans, resulting in small gates and again, the team starts losing money financially (albeit likely a smaller amount depending on the circumstances). See Penguins, Pittsburgh. And the thing is, if the team doesn't sign him he will always find a home elsewhere. See Rangers, New York.

 

Option A seems to drive teams into bankruptcy, so that seems an undesireable option. Option B seems to desire over-spending for the sake of over-spending, without receiving an acceptable return on investment. I would switch to option C. Grow your organization via a good farm system, and jettison players when they reach free agency, which at 28, is conveniently when their skills peak and begin to decline.

 

So, there you have it.

 

Now you may condone this crap in baseball (I'm not sure why), but in hockey, alot of the small market teams are the ones with fans who actually care passionately about the game.

 

Because the era of free agency in baseball has led to MORE parity, not less. When baseball had the reserve clause, restricting player salaries and encouraging player loyalty by restricting movement, by favored franchise finished above .500 once in a span of thirty years. And if the small market teams have passionate fans, shouldn't the small market clubs receive some sort of revenue from those fans? And if they have a lot of passionate fans, don't they cease to be small market?

 

So basically, due to the current economics creating a total lack of parity, hockey crazed centres (not to mention two of the most storied franchises in NHL history) like Edmonton and Montreal virtually have no chance of ever winning a Stanley Cup again.

 

Didn't Montreal make the playoffs last year?

 

I'm not really sure how this "market value" system that baseball uses is a good thing. If you want to look at the popularity of different sports in North America, one stands far and above the rest and a lot of that has to do with fans going into the season thinking that their team always has a shot at winning the championship, if not this coming season then in a few seasons.

 

I dispute that the NFL is that much more popular than baseball. And considering the Eagles and Patriots seem to dominate their respective conferences, I don't see how the NFL is this model of parity. The NFL's "parity" is due to short schedules and non-guaranteed contracts, not the salary cap. If any sport had a 16 game season, I guarantee you'd see parity.

 

I don't really see how a salary cap (especially a fluctuating one like the NHL proposed earlier) hurts the NHL, let alone any sport for that matter.

 

Look at what the salary cap has done for the NBA. No sport has less parity. Meanwhile, in the cap-less, parity-less MLB, where small-market teams have no chance, two of the eight teams slated for possible contraction for that reason have won the World Series, and two more have won at least three division titles in that span.

[iggymcfly 0]

Let's forget other sports for a minute. The NHL had plenty of parity last season.

 

The Stanley Cup Finals featured Tampa Bay and Calgary for god's sakes. Those teams weren't spending at anywhere near the levels of Detroit, Colorado, or the NY Rangers.

 

The real issue is that hockey was facing a slight recession in popularity and many of the owners were losing money. To combat this, the NHLPA offered a 24% rollback in salaries to improve the situation immediately, as well as a salary cap and tiered luxury tax to discourage salaries from raising back to too high of a level.

 

However, the NHL realized that the less they pay their players, the more leverage they have in the long run, and decided that they'd make more money by not paying the players a full year's salary to play a 30-game schedule.

 

Thus, the players will be desperate to make a deal next year, and the owners will lock themselves into a situation where they are guaranteed a profit, regardless of business acumen or operating costs.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

The NFL is not about promoting parity, it's about making things fair. When every team has the same amount to spend, there are no unfair advantages.

 

The game on the field should not be dictated by who has more money, but who is a better organized club.

 

Every team has a chance in the NFL, because of this. Seasons are sixteen games because the NFL is a much tougher sport on a person's body than Baseball, which is also why there's only one game a week. This has nothing to do with the parity since a baseball season is essentially the same in terms of competition, except instead of playing a division rival twice they'll play them like ten, fifteen times. I don't understand how a shorter season leads to parity. I think you mean a team might get lucky for one game or something, but most of the time, the teams that are in the playoffs are better than the ones outside it, so I don't know what you're trying to argue there.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

Option A seems to drive teams into bankruptcy, so that seems an undesireable option. Option B seems to desire over-spending for the sake of over-spending, without receiving an acceptable return on investment. I would switch to option C. Grow your organization via a good farm system, and jettison players when they reach free agency, which at 28, is conveniently when their skills peak and begin to decline.

 

Ah, the current Edmonton Oilers strategy. Can any Oiler fans tell me what it feels like to be constantly rebuilding, knowing that once your player's hit their prime that they will inevitably be lost via trade or free agency, only to be recylcled again for prospects or picks, who in time, will develop into great players and need to be shuffled off again.

 

Option C basically turns teams (like the Oilers constant situation) into feeder systems for squads like the Rangers, Flyers, etc.

 

On top of that, free agency (albeit restricted) starts at a much younger age, and it is in these years that some players get their salaries jacked up. Guys like Iginla and Theodore a few years ago were examples were the cash was too tight but the teams had to pay the money anyways. How do you explain to your fanbase that you traded away your franchise player?

 

Not to mention the poor qualifying system, where to maintain the rights of the restricted free agent you need to qualify him at an increased salary, no matter how undeservedly so.

 

Or he could always take you to arbitration and seek "market value" where he takes his numbers, compares them to Bobby Holik and says "see, I deserve $10 million a season as well". The team can then either accept the usual monstorous arbitration award or walk away, losing the players rights in the process.

 

I can't believe how blind you are to the weakneess of the current NHL collective bargaining agreement.

 

And if the small market teams have passionate fans, shouldn't the small market clubs receive some sort of revenue from those fans? And if they have a lot of passionate fans, don't they cease to be small market?

 

The old adage, about if the fans are so supportive why are the attendance numbers higher. Let's face it, you need to give the fans something to cheer for. I can't believe some people use this argument and feel that the fans should come out "just because". Fan support only goes so far. If you want the fans to cough up the astronomical ticket prices (driven up in large part by the high salaries) and purchase merchandise, then you need to give them something to cheer for.

 

It's akin to a favourite musician of yours. I'm a Pearl Jam fan. I like Pearl Jam and will support them if I like the music they put out (quality of the product). However, I'm not going to go out blindly and support them if they put no effort into putting a quality product and constantly expect me to buy albums "just because" I'm a fan.

 

 

Another problem with the current system is that the "market value" system creates a vicious cycle.

 

A few successful seasons and playoff runs leads to increased revenue (thanks to an increased attendance and playoff revenue boost). Now with that money, you can turn around and keep pumping it back into the organization, retaining high priced free agents and acquiring new ones as well.

 

So, the same teams keep driving up the salaries and making the playoffs, just because they were successful in the playoffs before and have the money to do so.

 

Meanwhile, the teams that weren't successful continue to fail to be successful, because the don't have the revenue to compete. Therefore a lack of success for a few seasons results in the team being constantly screwed over year after year.

 

Now, I suppose some would argue that this is what sport is about. However, this gives the lower tier teams virtually no chance to get better.

 

However, with a salary cap, each manager is on the same page. It truly tests out who the better G.M.'s in the league are and awards quality management.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Ah, the current Edmonton Oilers strategy. Can any Oiler fans tell me what it feels like to be constantly rebuilding, knowing that once your player's hit their prime that they will inevitably be lost via trade or free agency, only to be recylcled again for prospects or picks, who in time, will develop into great players and need to be shuffled off again.

 

Option C basically turns teams (like the Oilers constant situation) into feeder systems for squads like the Rangers, Flyers, etc.

 

On top of that, free agency (albeit restricted) starts at a much younger age, and it is in these years that some players get their salaries jacked up. Guys like Iginla and Theodore a few years ago were examples were the cash was too tight but the teams had to pay the money anyways. How do you explain to your fanbase that you traded away your franchise player?

 

Not to mention the poor qualifying system, where to maintain the rights of the restricted free agent you need to qualify him at an increased salary, no matter how undeservedly so.

 

Or he could always take you to arbitration and seek "market value" where he takes his numbers, compares them to Bobby Holik and says "see, I deserve $10 million a season as well". The team can then either accept the usual monstorous arbitration award or walk away, losing the players rights in the process.

 

I can't believe how blind you are to the weakneess of the current NHL collective bargaining agreement.

 

I see this argument raised all the time, and it always comes to the arbitration system. Well then FIX THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM. What does it have to do with a salary cap? And last I checked, the Oilers had several consecutive winning seasons.

 

The old adage, about if the fans are so supportive why are the attendance numbers higher. Let's face it, you need to give the fans something to cheer for. I can't believe some people use this argument and feel that the fans should come out "just because". Fan support only goes so far. If you want the fans to cough up the astronomical ticket prices (driven up in large part by the high salaries) and purchase merchandise, then you need to give them something to cheer for.

 

Player salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices. And I don't think fans should turn out just because. If the owner is a clueless jackass who can't run a team, they SHOULD stay away.

 

Another problem with the current system is that the "market value" system creates a vicious cycle.

 

A few successful seasons and playoff runs leads to increased revenue (thanks to an increased attendance and playoff revenue boost). Now with that money, you can turn around and keep pumping it back into the organization, retaining high priced free agents and acquiring new ones as well.

 

So, the same teams keep driving up the salaries and making the playoffs, just because they were successful in the playoffs before and have the money to do so.

 

Meanwhile, the teams that weren't successful continue to fail to be successful, because the don't have the revenue to compete. Therefore a lack of success for a few seasons results in the team being constantly screwed over year after year.

 

Now, I suppose some would argue that this is what sport is about. However, this gives the lower tier teams virtually no chance to get better.

 

Nope. In theory, this would drag win/loss records further apart. However, in major sports leagues, win-loss records tend to gravitate towards .500. The only franchise I've seen this phenomenom with is the Yankees, and that dates back to Ruth. Otherwise, I've never seen it.

 

I'm sorry, but I've never seen a salary cap increase parity. And owners certainly don't give a damn about championships, as long as they turn a profit. A salary cap is NOTHING more than a desperate grab at artificial restrictions on player salaries.

[CBright7831 0]

Damn, they just won't learn from baseball's mistake will they?  I JUST now have been sloooooowly getting back into baseball from their BS in what was it? 1994? Yeah, good luck getting me to buy tickets to Red Wings tickets now assholes.

Most baseball fans returned in 1995. Most statistics quoted from sportswriters use the attendance numbers of the pre-Strike year of 1993 as a basis of comparison. The problem is, those numbers are skewed because baseball's attendance in Colorado hit nearly 4.5 Million, and Florida drew a hair over 3 Million. The National League averaged more fans per game in 1995, immediately after the strike, than they did in 1992. The Strike probably stagnated attendance, but it hardly killed the game, and baseball recovered fully within five years.

Most of the fans came back during the big 98 season when McGwire and Sosa had the home run chase. The world paied attention to baseball again. I really don't see anyone having the effect that McGwire and Sosa did during that run. Hockey may have suffered permanant damage here. And the sad thing about all this in my eyes... the owners of the teams are losing LESS money but NOT having the teams play than if they did play.

Your sig is

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

 

Not really relevant, but I thought it looked cool, so I posted it.

 

EDIT: Relevant as in an ESPN picture stating a very obvious fact. I'm sure though that there are many on the board who might take this picture very seriously. Being a Canadian, I'm glad because now have to hear about hockey hogging up all the time on the sports channels.

[The Czech Republic 0]

So basically, due to the current economics creating a total lack of parity, hockey crazed centres (not to mention two of the most storied franchises in NHL history) like Edmonton and Montreal virtually have no chance of ever winning a Stanley Cup again.

 

Didn't Montreal make the playoffs last year?

Made it to the second round in 02 and 04, actually, but the Canadiens are in no position to win #25 any time soon

[Lightning Flik 0]

I see this argument raised all the time, and it always comes to the arbitration system.  Well then FIX THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM.  What does it have to do with a salary cap?  And last I checked, the Oilers had several consecutive winning seasons.

 

All I have to do as a hockey fan is look at our situation with Mike Comrie to know how badly the whole system fucked. And the reason we'd need a cap is because we can't fix the damn arbitration system if there is some team that goes of out of the way to pay these guys third tier players, first tier money. If the Rangers go out and pay a third tier player first tier money it won't matter what arbitration system is in place, it will still result back in us ending up right were we started.

 

BTW, why is the NHL the only league with arbitration? That doesn't make any sense at all. Why is it our sport needs it? I mean, I don't see the reasoning for us being the only ones.

 

Player salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices.

 

There is no other resource besides the gate for the NHL to pay out salaries. Each team makes only 3 million on TV contracts, only hold 20000 for attendance for 80 games a season, and with no other way to get money; you expect teams not to increase ticket prices along with salaries?

 

I'm sorry, but I've never seen a salary cap increase parity.  And owners certainly don't give a damn about championships, as long as they turn a profit.  A salary cap is NOTHING more than a desperate grab at artificial restrictions on player salaries.

 

We're tired of having the high paying teams such as the Rangers, the Red Wings, the Avs offer huge contracts to the best players and then have to make due with third tier talents playing as good as first. There's just no way in hell. Yes, the Red Wings, Avs, and Rangers only agree with this because their owners are greedy bastards who get more money that way.

 

For the Edmonton Oilers' 19 owners, this is the only chance for making the team have a chance of not leaving town. How can you field a team, when the contracts are raised above and beyond what you can pay because of what 3-6 teams do? It basically kills nearly all the small market teams (which basically means all Canadian teams except for Toronto).

[starvenger 0]

The NFL is not about promoting parity, it's about making things fair. When every team has the same amount to spend, there are no unfair advantages.

Doesn't the NFLPA have the least amount of leverage of all the 3 major sports (and hockey)?

 

Anyways, my contribution to this is to say: Bettman and Goodenow, you can go straight to hell.

 

BTW, why is the NHL the only league with arbitration? That doesn't make any sense at all. Why is it our sport needs it? I mean, I don't see the reasoning for us being the only ones.

MLB has arbitration, and it's worse than the NHL's.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

I see this argument raised all the time, and it always comes to the arbitration system. Well then FIX THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM. What does it have to do with a salary cap? And last I checked, the Oilers had several consecutive winning seasons.

 

Their is a big difference between winning seasons and making the playoffs. A team can play slightly over .500 as much as they want, but if they can't make the playoffs, that is a huge hit, especially in the NHL. The Oilers have only made the playoffs once in the past three seasons, and that was limping in as an eighth seed at that.

 

Even scrapping the arbitration system doesn't work because that is not the main problem. The problem is the money rich teams setting the bar a notch above what the lower tier teams can afford.

 

Player salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices. And I don't think fans should turn out just because. If the owner is a clueless jackass who can't run a team, they SHOULD stay away.

 

Again, you can try to use the old supply-demand argument here, however, particularly in the NHL, ticket prices can often be directly linked to player costs.

 

Nope. In theory, this would drag win/loss records further apart. However, in major sports leagues, win-loss records tend to gravitate towards .500. The only franchise I've seen this phenomenom with is the Yankees, and that dates back to Ruth. Otherwise, I've never seen it.

 

I'm sorry, but I've never seen a salary cap increase parity. And owners certainly don't give a damn about championships, as long as they turn a profit. A salary cap is NOTHING more than a desperate grab at artificial restrictions on player salaries.

 

Obviously you don't follow the NHL too strongly or you would have seen this for about the past 10 years.

 

In other sports it may not be as major because of alternate revenue sources. However, as mentioned earlier, the NHL's primary revenue source is ticket sales. Getting an extra 3-6 playoff games is huge for teams, let alone for the teams that make the conference finals and Cup final.

 

This is why teams like Detroit, Dallas, Colorado, etc. had a massive monopoly over the west for so many years.

 

The thing with the salary cap is that it may not create parity, but it does create a level playing field that gives all teams the same opportunity to win.

 

I dispute that the NFL is that much more popular than baseball. And considering the Eagles and Patriots seem to dominate their respective conferences, I don't see how the NFL is this model of parity. The NFL's "parity" is due to short schedules and non-guaranteed contracts, not the salary cap. If any sport had a 16 game season, I guarantee you'd see parity.

 

I hear this argument all the time. However, looking at the figures over the past three seasons you have 20 of the 32 teams falling with a record between .400 and .600, which would be considered an average record in football. And of those teams 11 of those teams have records that fall between 21-27 and 26-22. It is safe to say that any teams that fall outside this sphere are likely due to either strong or poor management.

 

The salary cap is not perfect in creating parity because it relies on human judgement. However, every team has the same opportunity. The only difference between New England's success and Arizona's misfortune, is strong management. You can't say that when comparing Detroit to Edmonton in the NHL.

 

On top of that, 22 different teams have made the playoffs in that time span in the NFL (which you could argue is based on the short schedule, however, that was just negated with the previous numbers). Only 3 teams have made the playoffs all three years.

 

In comparison, in the NHL, where they let 4 more teams in the playoffs per year than the NFL (and also have two less total teams) only 23 different teams have made the playoffs the past three seasons.

 

Not to mention the fact that in the Eastern Conference, the eight different playoff spots have been shared by only ten teams the past three seasons, with five teams being left out in the cold all three years.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I hear this argument all the time. However, looking at the figures over the past three seasons you have 20 of the 32 teams falling with a record between .400 and .600, which would be considered an average record in football. And of those teams 11 of those teams have records that fall between 21-27 and 26-22. It is safe to say that any teams that fall outside this sphere are likely due to either strong or poor management.

 

The salary cap is not perfect in creating parity because it relies on human judgement. However, every team has the same opportunity. The only difference between New England's success and Arizona's misfortune, is strong management. You can't say that when comparing Detroit to Edmonton in the NHL.

 

On top of that, 22 different teams have made the playoffs in that time span in the NFL (which you could argue is based on the short schedule, however, that was just negated with the previous numbers). Only 3 teams have made the playoffs all three years.

 

In comparison, in the NHL, where they let 4 more teams in the playoffs per year than the NFL (and also have two less total teams) only 23 different teams have made the playoffs the past three seasons.

 

Not to mention the fact that in the Eastern Conference, the eight different playoff spots have been shared by only ten teams the past three seasons, with five teams being left out in the cold all three years.

 

You misunderstand. The idea is not that teams are equal in talent. Its that the random process of 16 games gives more variance, and that allows teams to sneak into the playoffs. This argument does not really prove anything. Even in a fair system, some teams will dominate, and its easy to stay on top over a span of three seasons. If you want to prove this argument, you need to use a span of at least a decade.

 

There is no other resource besides the gate for the NHL to pay out salaries. Each team makes only 3 million on TV contracts, only hold 20000 for attendance for 80 games a season, and with no other way to get money; you expect teams not to increase ticket prices along with salaries?

 

Again, you can try to use the old supply-demand argument here, however, particularly in the NHL, ticket prices can often be directly linked to player costs.

 

TIcket prices are set (or should be set) at the level where teams derive the most revenue. If they aren't, then that is part of their problem. But let's say player salaries were cut in half. Do you think owners would magnanimously slash prices and concessions? I have my doubts. Heck, the NFL, with the most stringent salary cap, also has by far the highest ticket prices.

[Slayer 0]

This is what happens when you allow Tampa to win the Stanley Cup... your league implodes on itself