Gone, but not gone?
On Wednesday, February 16th, the National Hockey League cancelled the 2004-2005 season following a lockout since the last Collective Bargaining Agreement. Today, it is looking like the cancellation maybe be cancelled. Both sides are working to hammer out a deal to salvage the season. It appears the worst case situation will be to have an Agreement in place to save the next season. For all hockey fans out there, I hope something can be worked out.
It has appeared to me that this situation is the fault of the players and the Players Association. In the United States, where most NHL teams are based, hockey is not as popular as the Players Association apparently thinks. The players cannot be expected to make comparable salaries to their peers in baseball, basketball, and football. A salary cap tied to league revenues is a huge step in the right direction, since it will act as a safety measure, controlling salaries before they upset the balance of revenues and expenses. The last I heard, the cap was not necessarily going to be linked to revenues, but at some point, I am sure it will happen.
Now, I am not an expert on hockey, nor do I follow it. However, from my perspective, there are things that need to happen to bring hockey back to the levels of its glory days:
1. Franchise movement: Hockey is, and always will be, a Canadian sport. Americans do embrace it, but it is still well behind the other major sports in terms of interest. Why then are there only 20% of the teams based in Canada? Why are there teams in Phoenix, Tampa Bay, and Miami, but no teams in Hartford or any city in Maine? The League should go back to its roots, moving teams back across the border, where kids grow up playing hockey and the interest would be stronger. With more teams in Canada, the League would be influenced more by the economy of Canada and less by the economy of the United States. That change might make it an easier playing field for the NHL teams to play on.
2. Revenue sharing: This should be tied into my previous suggestion. Teams need to be located in hotbeds of hockey interest, which may be smaller cities in Canada. A revenue sharing system based on that of the National Football League (which allows teams like the Green Bay Packers to be competitive) would make franchise movement feasible.
3. Contraction: Even after you have a team in every locale where it makes sense to have one, there would still be some teams in places where they do not belong. Unless a revenue sharing model can provide enough revenues to fund 30 teams, some have to go.
The first two suggestions are essential in my mind. It is possible that after taking those actions, contraction might be aviodable. As much talk as there has been about rule changes to increase scoring, that is something that should be addressed later. By putting teams in locales where youth hockey is a prevalent activity, local fan interest would be generated without changing the rules.
Again, this is my opinion, based on watching the negotiation from a distance. You never know, I may have a point. We will see if any of my suggestions ever become part of the negotiations.
It has appeared to me that this situation is the fault of the players and the Players Association. In the United States, where most NHL teams are based, hockey is not as popular as the Players Association apparently thinks. The players cannot be expected to make comparable salaries to their peers in baseball, basketball, and football. A salary cap tied to league revenues is a huge step in the right direction, since it will act as a safety measure, controlling salaries before they upset the balance of revenues and expenses. The last I heard, the cap was not necessarily going to be linked to revenues, but at some point, I am sure it will happen.
Now, I am not an expert on hockey, nor do I follow it. However, from my perspective, there are things that need to happen to bring hockey back to the levels of its glory days:
1. Franchise movement: Hockey is, and always will be, a Canadian sport. Americans do embrace it, but it is still well behind the other major sports in terms of interest. Why then are there only 20% of the teams based in Canada? Why are there teams in Phoenix, Tampa Bay, and Miami, but no teams in Hartford or any city in Maine? The League should go back to its roots, moving teams back across the border, where kids grow up playing hockey and the interest would be stronger. With more teams in Canada, the League would be influenced more by the economy of Canada and less by the economy of the United States. That change might make it an easier playing field for the NHL teams to play on.
2. Revenue sharing: This should be tied into my previous suggestion. Teams need to be located in hotbeds of hockey interest, which may be smaller cities in Canada. A revenue sharing system based on that of the National Football League (which allows teams like the Green Bay Packers to be competitive) would make franchise movement feasible.
3. Contraction: Even after you have a team in every locale where it makes sense to have one, there would still be some teams in places where they do not belong. Unless a revenue sharing model can provide enough revenues to fund 30 teams, some have to go.
The first two suggestions are essential in my mind. It is possible that after taking those actions, contraction might be aviodable. As much talk as there has been about rule changes to increase scoring, that is something that should be addressed later. By putting teams in locales where youth hockey is a prevalent activity, local fan interest would be generated without changing the rules.
Again, this is my opinion, based on watching the negotiation from a distance. You never know, I may have a point. We will see if any of my suggestions ever become part of the negotiations.
posted by Josh at 11:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home