| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 10:59:09
Given the current economic landscape and the potential danger some NHL teams face, do you feel that it would be beneficial for the NHL, long term, to lose about 4 teams? Not only would the league lose less money but the re-distribution of talent would also increase the overall level of play throughout the league.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| brentrock2 |
Posted - 09/24/2009 : 13:23:56
Couldn't agree more, I say Yes.
HABS RULE!!
brentrock2 |
| phlyguy90 |
Posted - 09/24/2009 : 13:21:32
i couldnt agree more. the nhl has killed itself with expansion. there is no need for a team to be in atlanta, there population is mostly african american and they can even sell out atlanta hawk games! why is there two teams in florida? thats one third the number of teams in all of cananda! and dont even get me started on the phoenix coyotes, that situation just speaks for itself. |
| Thrasher |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 15:00:48
quote:
Originally posted by MSC
You talk about cutting the Islanders but go on to say that Toronto could handle two teams...like New York....???
Yes, but Islanders are last in league attendance. I didn't mean they would still have two teams, if thats what your confused about. Toronto could support two teams better than New York i think. New York Currently has two teams, but one is very lackluster. It would do better else where. |
| MSC |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 14:17:27
You talk about cutting the Islanders but go on to say that Toronto could handle two teams...like New York....??? |
| Thrasher |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 13:25:33
why Tampa? They are not the problem. Islanders, Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus, Pheonix, are the teams with the worst attendance. Although why is it needed that teams need to be eliminated? The NHL is the only major sport in North America that experienced increased profit this year. Why do things need to be changed?? We should not eliminate teams, just move them to different cities if they need to be changed. Vegas would love a proffesional team, and the money brought in just from their would be incredible. Send a team to Kansas City, they have crazy sports fans. Is Winnipeg ready for another team? I hear Toronto could handle two teams, much like New York. And just for arguing sakes, how bout a team in Quebec again? I don't know if it would work, but im sure they could fill up and arena better than Pheonix could. If everyone involved with hockey wants it to be like the other major sports, why would we take out teams?? All the other sports have around 30-32 teams, and that works fine.
And then if they do take out 4 teams, where do the extra players go? Have a draft? Free agents? Then when all the other teams have 4 extra players, with extra salary, what does the cap go to? Wont you just be putting more pressure on the teams that barely made the cut to not be cut? Nothing about cutting teams make sense, except maybe to get super stars like Nash and Kovalchuk to better hockey markets. More stars on the same teams may lead to more goals, but their are only a few good players on the teams that will get cut. Nash and Kovalchuk would go to bad teams, who probably have attendance issues. Then, when their large contracts get added to the teams salary, more problems. Then what, cut down again?
Dont change the NHL, its fine the way it is. |
| Oilking |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 11:04:33
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I think a little something is being missed here. The players salaries are based on Revenue, not profit. Even those teams losing money are still bringing in revenue, so the players salaries would definately go down even though the league would be more profitable.
But an easy fit for that is to increase the % of the revenue that must be spent on players. I think it's like 56% or something like that. Move it up to 60% and the players will still be making their cash!
I think the quality of the game would be a little better and eliminate those average players who would have never made it in the 21 team league so maybe we could have more quality play. I am not sure if the league would ever do this but it would benefit the fans but as usual the league is for the league and not for the fan except let them vote for the all star game hahaha
Oh well here we go again |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 15:19:21
I think a little something is being missed here. The players salaries are based on Revenue, not profit. Even those teams losing money are still bringing in revenue, so the players salaries would definately go down even though the league would be more profitable.
But an easy fit for that is to increase the % of the revenue that must be spent on players. I think it's like 56% or something like that. Move it up to 60% and the players will still be making their cash! |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 15:00:35
In an ideal situation, with fewer teams the cap should not matter - all teams would be in solid markets making excellent profits, more skill and likely superstars on the team which would draw more people. Also fans of the game would see there favourite teams and players more often(if their favourite team was no where near where they live). Anyways the league revenue would go up and hence the cap moves up. Like I said this would be in an ideal situation. I also would like to see a few of the weaker market teams relocated to Canada. Lets face it, canadian markets are strong and they already provide 45% of league revenue. Lets get back in Winnipeg and for petes sake Hamilton. |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 13:50:15
You wouldn't have "nothing but superstars" on any team. Say of the 4 teams that fold each one has 1 superstar, 2 at most. That would only be about 6-7 amazing players who go to other teams and about 20-25 good players who spread out amongst the 26 teams. All you do if rid the league of players who aren't really capable of being a solid 3rd line player, or that hard nosed 4th liner. I think the lack of depth we see on alot of clubs 2nd and 3rd lines would be eliminated and most teams would be able to send out 2 -3 lines that can play at a high level, produce offense and be responsible defensivley.
Like I said above, Im not sure it would eliminate the "tough guy" but it would hurt the chances of the tweener players, guys who arent tough as nailz but also arent neccessarily a skilled player or a defensive specialist.
One big problem would be the cap. Adding 2 or 3 2mill-4mill players would definatley be an issue and players would not be looking to take a pay cut. Its pretty complicated and I definatley don't have it figured out, but It was an interesting thought...you would probably see alot of good players making 1 -2 mil...
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 12:05:26
I like the idea of less teams. Lets face it even before the economic conditions eroded places like Florida, Pheonix, Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, even Tampa struggle to put people in the seats. It has to be mentally tough to play before 5 or 6 thousands for home games and players like Nash and Kovalchuk have stated a desire to play in a more desirable market. The redistribution of talent would be interesting if 4 teams were dropped. The NHLPA would fight less teams because their members would lose jobs. |
| Alex |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 11:33:52
In an NHL were all you have are your superstars, no one will be a superstar. If we're getting rid of 4 out of 30 teams, that means over 13 percent of the NHL. Assuming that a team dresses on average 20 players per game (12 forwards, 6 defense, 2 goalies) that means what you are effectively doing, for argument's sake, is knocking off 2.6 players per team.
I don't think the NHL should change anything simply because it ain't broke right now. Location - maybe; quantity - nope.
Make sure to cast your votes in the PickUpHockey Hall of Fame |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 11:06:16
quote:
Originally posted by Matt_Roberts85
I was thinking that if superstars like Kovalchuk and Nash (just examples) were in thriving hockey markets as opposed to dying ones that the NHL would be more entertaining and the rosters on each NHL club wouldn't be as watered down with 4th line pluggers. Although I respect the 4th line plugger, a little more high end talent on each team sounds like a good idea. Would the salary cap through a monkey wrench into this nice idea or is it actually feasable?
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E".
I meant "would the salary cap THROW a monkey wrench...." sorry
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 11:03:00
I was thinking that if superstars like Kovalchuk and Nash (just examples) were in thriving hockey markets as opposed to dying ones that the NHL would be more entertaining and the rosters on each NHL club wouldn't be as watered down with 4th line pluggers. Although I respect the 4th line plugger, a little more high end talent on each team sounds like a good idea. Would the salary cap through a monkey wrench into this nice idea or is it actually feasable?
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
|
|
