Posted on 02/09/2005 6:37:29 PM PST by SamAdams76
Last week, espn.com, the Internet site for all-sports TV station ESPN, asked its American subscribers to weigh in on the NHL lockout. "Do you care that the NHL is expected to cancel the 2004-05 season?" they asked.
Of the 146,514 responses, 73% said "No."
Given what we north of the border have been surmising over the past few months, that percentage is not terribly surprising. Hockey coverage in the States is as hard to find as cricket coverage in Canada. It's a boutique sport at best.
What is surprising is that many actually responded. Were they giving away free cars?
We in Canada love and care about hockey in a way unmatched around the globe, but I'm starting to doubt if Canadians care as deeply as we think about the current labour dispute. Given his or her druthers, every hockey fan in this country obviously would choose to have the NHL back on ice and back on our TV sets. But in light of the equally obvious fact that it's not going to happen anytime soon, I am sensing little in the way of passionate outrage that you might expect of a people deprived of their game.
Lockout conversations tend to peter out after a minute or two, simply because there's not a lot to say. Once you get past "Are they coming back?" and the obligatory negative response, talk turns to more urgent matters, like the price of kids' sticks.
So, what in the name of Gordie Howe is going on here? It certainly isn't that we don't care, because down deep we do.
My own belief is that in an age of unfathomable player riches, not to mention ticket prices, the public has disconnected itself from the people who play and run the game.
Trevor Linden may expect us working stiffs to appreciate the principle behind his association's stalwart refusal to accept a cap on their salaries that would reduce the average salary from $1.8 million US to $1.3 million, but the truth is nobody I know can relate to such thinking.
If you can believe the industry numbers, there is a $2 billion pie (shrinking with each passing day) to be divided. How can such an economic reality get lost in the semantics of "salary cap" and "linkage" and "cost certainty."
For heaven's sake, at $1 million a year a middle-of-the road NHLer will gross more in two seasons than about 90% of the population earns in 40 years of working.
In the realm of professional athletics, hockey players have managed in general to maintain their image as "real" people; good guys, humble and as well-grounded as the small towns where so many are from. But in recent years, it has gotten so that the only people who can afford to go to watch them play are rich and well-connected themselves.
Because it's hockey and because it's Canada, folks will cheer for the sweater (whenever that sweater reappears). They will pine quietly for the game they love but care little for the "plight" of the millionaires who play it and the billionaires who own the teams.
As this charade of a negotiation drags on yet another week, each side rooted to the same patch of ground it occupied two years ago, the players and owners will continue to wage their little war through the media for the hearts and minds of the people in the street.
As far as we can tell, though, those hearts and minds already have moved on.
NIGHT OF GLORY
Mark Messier, in Rangers' home white, holding The Cup.
The Rangers have sucked since then, their owners are almost as bad as those of the Mets, and ticket prices up to $140 each are just a joke.
You can't save someone from themself, and that applies to entire industries. This is proof.
Did you play in the Delaware Valley Hockey League? You weren't one of those dreaded Bristol Blazers, were you?
In the case of the Rangers, it does not translate to success, but it does translate to long-term viability. The Senators or Sabres cannot survive as many seasons of failure as the big-market US teams.
In the case of MLB, it should be the same. People point to the salary caps in the NFL and NBA, but it's really the revenue sharing (their local broadcast revenue is a pittance, except for the Knicks, Nets and Lakers).
But the point about socialism is that you have to recognize that a sports league is a single enterprise with franchises. In terms of revenue, the teams do not compete against each other.
Winter wheat, corn, hay, alfalfa, timothy, Belgian endive, anything but soccer.
I played at Face-Off Circle in Warminster.
It was a nice, competetive adult in-house league.
"I don't want the NHL to turn into what the NFL has become with their salary cap."
I agree. AND....
Did ANYONE see the ticket prices for NFL games go DOWN because they instituted a salary cap? NO!
If a hard cap is imposed by the owners, don't expect the 'saved' dollars to end up in your pants pocket!!
I'd have to do a lot more drinking to really enjoy 4.4 seconds of action followed by 15 minutes of people, next to me in the stands, trying to make small talk in between burps and farts.
Salary caps aren't about saving dollars, a salary cap is about increasing competitiveness. One of the disadvantages the NHL has is that there are only half a dozen or so legitimate contenders for the Cup, if you're a fan of some team other than one of the big power houses you know before the season even begins that you're team has little if any chance of winning the Cup, this causes the majority of their teams to play functionally meaningless games that don't create a lot of fan excitement. Compare that to the NFL where next September there's only going be half a dozen teams that have no legitimate claim at a chance to win it all, this creates more fan excitement which is reflected in higher attendance, higher TV ratings, and increased overall revenue. The salary cap was put in for the NFL to make it so teams other than Dallas, NYG, Washington and SF could energize their fan base. The downside is you no longer have these uber teams that are great in all apsects of the game, the upside is you no longer have these uber teams that beat the crap out of everybody else.
The era of the dynasties was really boring for AFC fans, and frankly it's been really boring for Eastern Conference NHL fans, do you realize that Tampa last year was the first Eastern Team not name "Devils" that hoisted the Stanley Cup since the Rangers beat Vancouver in the early 90s? How unexciting was it to be in an Eastern city other than Jersey during that time? You can see how dull it was by what happened to most teams revenue, and the game's TV ratings as a whole. Salary caps might not be good for the pure essence of the game, but for the fiscal survival of the game it's proven to be really good.
"Salary caps aren't about saving dollars, a salary cap is about increasing competitiveness."
And that has worked in MLB with the Yankees, for instance?
"...if you're a fan of some team other than one of the big power houses you know before the season even begins that you're team has little if any chance of winning the Cup,..."
NHL Stanley Cup Finals
2004 Tampa Bay Lightning Calgary Flames 4-3
2003 New Jersey Devils Mighty Ducks of Anaheim 4-3
2002 Detroit Red Wings Carolina Hurricanes 4-1
2001 Colorado Avalanche New Jersey Devils 4-3
2000 New Jersey Devils Dallas Stars 4-2
1999 Dallas Stars Buffalo Sabres 4-2
1998 Detroit Red Wings Washington Capitals 4-0
1997 Detroit Red Wings Philadelphia Flyers 4-0
1996 Colorado Avalanche Florida Panthers 4-0
1995 New Jersey Devils Detroit Red Wings 4-0
1994 New York Rangers Vancouver Canucks 4-3
1993 Montreal Canadiens Los Angeles Kings 4-1
1992 Pittsburgh Penguins Chicago Blackhawks 4-0
1991 Pittsburgh Penguins Minnesota North Stars 4-2
1990 Edmonton Oilers Boston Bruins 4-1
1989 Calgary Flames Montreal Canadiens 4-2
1988 Edmonton Oilers Boston Bruins 4-0
1987 Edmonton Oilers Philadelphia Flyers 4-3
1986 Montreal Canadiens Calgary Flames 4-1
1985 Edmonton Oilers Philadelphia Flyers 4-1
Ten different teams have won the Stanley Cup in the last 20 years.
NFL Super Bowl
XXXIX Feb. 6, 2005 New England 24, Philadelphia 21
XXXVIII Feb. 1, 2004 New England 32, Carolina 29
XXXVII Jan. 26, 2003 Tampa Bay 48, Oakland 21
XXXVI Feb. 3, 2002 New England 20, St. Louis 17
XXXV Jan. 28, 2001 Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7
XXXIV Jan. 30, 2000 St. Louis 23, Tennessee 16
XXXIII Jan. 31, 1999 Denver 34, Atlanta 19
XXXII Jan. 25, 1998 Denver 31, Green Bay 24
XXXI Jan. 26, 1997 Green Bay 35, New England 21
XXX Jan. 28, 1996 Dallas 27, Pittsburgh 17
XXIX Jan. 29, 1995 San Francisco 49, San Diego 26
XXVIII Jan. 30, 1994 Dallas 30, Buffalo 13
XXVII Jan. 31, 1993 Dallas 52, Buffalo 17
XXVI Jan. 26, 1992 Washington 37, Buffalo 24
XXV Jan. 27, 1991 N.Y. Giants 20, Buffalo 19
XXIV Jan. 28, 1990 San Francisco 55, Denver 10
XXIII Jan. 22, 1989 San Francisco 20, Cincinnati 16
XXII Jan. 31, 1988 Washington 42, Denver 10
XXI Jan. 25, 1987 N.Y. Giants 39, Denver 20
XX Jan. 26, 1986 Chicago 46, New England 10
In the last 20 years there have been 11 different teams win the Super Bowl.
In baseball they've had 13 different teams in the last 20 years.
There have been 10 different drivers in the last 20 years for the NASCAR championship.
There have been 6 different teams win the NBA finals in the last 20 years.
And the logical point you can make about a hard cap and competitiveness is..... nonexistent.
You're running a disingenuous comparison. The cap has only been around since 94 or 95 in the NFL. And prior to the 90s NHL salaries were pretty low across the board (Gretzky didn't even make a million bucks until he went to LA, greatest layer in the history of the game was playing for 900 grand). A good comparison time is 94 up. That's where you see the 2nd age of dyansties took over in the NHL and you get Colorado, Detroit, Dallas and Jersey alternating Cups, and the age of dynasties passed in the NFL and you could never really guess who was going to win it all, until Belichick cracked the code.
You still have a limited view of negotiation. When I attend mediations for clients, especially in commercial cases, I don't change our demand or what we are willing to do very often. I spend a great deal of time trying to convince the other side that what we are asking for/willing to give is in their best interest. THAT is still negotiation.
I didn't check you date of registration. Are you still in school? I registered on here my first year law school and just kept the handle! But I've been out for a while.
"You're running a disingenuous comparison."
Really? How is it disingenuous to compare the major sports with regard to your pointed reference to the need for a hard cap in order to promote competition, despite the fact that each of those sports owners uses a different way to fund themselves?
But, let's see about your premise that "A good comparison time is 94 up."
In the NBA: 5 teams since the '94 Finals.
In the MLB: 6 teams since the '94 World Series.
In the NHL: 5 teams since the '94 Stanley Cup.
In the NFL: 8 teams since the '94 Superbowl.
In NASCAR: 7 drivers since the '94 season.
I'm very curious about how you extract the benefit of a hard cap from even the last 10 or so years? Upon what are you basing your opinion? Surely not recent sporting history.
It's disingenuous to comare the "results" of salary cap by including the 10 years prior to the salary cap, the 10 years in fact that are why the NFL wanted a salary cap in the first place. It artificially weighs the data with completely contrary evidence. If you want to take the 10 years prior to the cap, the era of capless free agency, then you should just do a straight NFL to NFL comparison. The NFL pretty neatly devides into 3 eras: no free agency, free agency without cap, and free agency with cap. When you compare those eras with each other you'll see the middle era had the least competitive balance, even with the Steelers totally skewing the first era's data.
Yes recent sporting history, throw Nascar out because it's a very different kind of team sport and it's nearly impossible to compare to the others in any way, especially because there are different layers of teams, each driver has a team behind him, but there's usually a primary sponsor (like DEI) that forms a team behind the team which makes the picture incredibly cloudy, how many of those different drivers had the same shell team behind them, did any repeats switch teams? Too ugly to contemplate.
So in the other four notice that the NFL has more different teams winning than the other three, also dig into the finances and you'll find that the NFL is the only one of the four showing increases in attendance, TV ratings and overall revenue. Recent sporting history clearly shows that a hard cap is good for competitive balance and high competitive balance is good the sport's revenue.
I think you're right. That's why I am not opposed to spending limits, just as long as they are not absolute.
The players have come up with some great ideas that I would like to see put in place.
Agreed. Revenue sharing or spending limits > salary cap
I'm saying the league keeps talking about their need to come together and that is disingenuous. Forget that you and I are in law and look at it from a lay perspective. That's what I am talking about. I can appreciate a good tough negotiator, I just want to clear up what is exactly going on in these negotiations.
You're right, the NHL is playing hardball. They have every right to do so. In terms of coming to a middle ground like the media is talking about (different than sticking to your guns), the blame for not coming to the middle lies with the owners right now.
Initially, I thought you were taking a devil's advocate position. But, obviously, not.
Bettman was the BRAINCHILD behind the NBA's HARDCAP agreement in 1983!
Since you want to compare apples to apples, let's see what the difference between the "1984 to PRESENT DAY HARDCAP" NBA reality is vs. the '64 to '84 timeframe, shall we?
From '64 to '84 there were 9 different teams that won the NBA championship.
From '84 to present there have been 6.
The HARDCAP sure brought significant improvement, didn't it?
How 'bout them apples (to apples)?
In 1994 the NFL hardcap took effect. Since that time (the 1995 Superbowl) there have been 8 different teams win. (8/11 73% variance)
In December 1975 the "Rozelle Rule", for compensated (read 'penalized') free agency, was struck down. The NFL predicted that all the good players would go to warm climate teams, or big market venues.
From the 1977 Superbowl to 1984, there were 6 different teams that won.
(6/8 75% variance)
In 1968 John Mackey won a landmark free agency case against the NFL. (But, in 1977 the player's union effectively reinstated the pre-1968 status quo with the NFL through the Collective Bargaining Agreement!)
In the years of 1969 to 1976 there were 6 different teams that won.
(6/8 75% variance)
Prior to 1969 the Packers won both Super Bowls.
Tell me again how the percentages have been increased by hardcap salary restrictions!!!!
Salary caps have problems, but for some reason, they seem to be easier to get than revenue sharing.
>>the blame for not coming to the middle lies with the owners right now<<
That may be true, but again, that doesn't mean they are negotiating in good faith. Its just as true that the players aren't negotiating in good faith by refusing to allow a cap, as the owners aren't negotiating in good faith by refusing to allow one. Further, as referenced earlier with the house analogy, if the owners believe that the only system that they will work under includes a salary cap, then the players must either accept that in principle and demand other concessions, or its going to be a long time before we see the NHL.
But I'm also not that the owners aren't "coming to the middle". Granted they haven't come off their salary cap demand, but do you know for sure they haven't made other concessions? In other words, don't assume that because they have stuck to one issue (a major one, granted) that they haven't conceeded other things.
You don't know for sure that the players aren't playing hardball as well, holding out as long as possible to deny a salary cap, then jumping on whatever offer comes after a salary cap is dead.
The owners argument is that they are losing less money now than they would if play is going on. Whether that's true or not, they seem to be acting like it is in their negotiations. If it is true, the players have no other choice than to give in, or go play in Europe.
The NBA doesn't have a hard cap, their cap has exception rules is and is officially listed as a soft cap. Now one thing I do like about the NBA cap is they also have a minimum team salary and I think the NFL would benefit from that, most of the habitually bad teams in the NFL are also the cheap teams that don't spend up anywhere near the cap.
It took years for the Rozelle rule's abolishment to seriously effect the league, teams had key players tied up to long term contracts which delayed their entry into the new real free agency. By 84 free agency was in full effect and the predictions were by and large correct, the big market teams began to rule the roost. Not coincidentally that ushered in the time when the NFC, which mostly plays in larger media areas than the AFC and has higher team revenues, began their 13 year monopoly on the Superbowl with only 5 different teams hoisting the trophy, finally brought to an end by salary cap parity. Not only did these same 5 teams win over and over the tended to win in blow outs because they were the only teams that could afford to be that good. The NHL right now is in a period analogous to that 84-95 period in the NFL, the big market teams that can afford the most good players (with the exception of the Rangers who are just poorly run) have ruled the Cup and will continue to rule the Cup until some sort of competitive balance can be restored.
The facts are there and obvious to be seen by all, the era of the NFL when they had true free agency and no cap is the era of dynasties with a whopping 38% variation. So the cap has nearly doubled the level of variation and restored things to the same ball park things were in before the era of true free agency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.