Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by calgARI '07
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: February 09, 2005 08:02PM
Wow, "Drop Dead Date" is a worse misnomer than "Death Tax" and "Marriage Penalty"
Don't be fooled, they won't actually drop dead.
Don't be fooled, they won't actually drop dead.
___________________________
24 is the devil
24 is the devil
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 09, 2005 08:11PM
[q]Don't be fooled, they won't actually drop dead.[/q]Would it be wrong to hope that they do? (Bettman and Goodenow anyway...) 
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: February 09, 2005 08:17PM
To be more specific as to what happened today, Bettman basically called Goodenow's bluff. The NHL essentially offered the PA's huge 24% rollback proposal from December 9th. Then if that doesnt keep payrolls and salaries at a desired level, the NHL's salary cap proposal from a couple weeks ago will be implemented. The PA rejected it, basically affirming that his December 9th proposal that has been trumpeted by all PA people is garbage. If they are so confident in that proposal working, then why won't they accept this deal? Because of it works, then there will be no cap ever. For the first time I am proud to be in the same program Bettman was in.
More specific points:
[www.nhlcbanews.com]
More specific points:
[www.nhlcbanews.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2005 08:51PM by calgARI '07.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: RichS (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: February 09, 2005 09:18PM
how long will your being "proud" last? 
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 09, 2005 10:54PM
I think it more has to do with the fact that the terms of 'conversion' are virtually guaranteed to happen, and are in no way a compromise. If the NHL would be willing to bargain on those, and make them more middle of the road, then the players union should accept and I'd agree with you.
In the meantime:
- the top 3 clubs average is 33% higher than the bottom 3 clubs average? So all they have to do is get 3 owners together and ask them not to spend much for just one year, and bingo, salary cap.
Put together conditions that are a compromise, and not a trap, and then maybe the NHL will have a good offer.
A another example:
What exactly is the difference between a salary cap at 55%, and an automatic cap kicking in if salaries exceed 55%? Answer: exactly nothing except for one year. Now, had they said that a cap would kick in at 55% or 57% if the salaries ever exceeded, not including revenue from a strong luxury tax, something around 60% - well then, that's still pretty cost certain for the owners, and provide a margin of error for the players. Then I could blame the NHLPA.
But on the good news, I dunno, if there's absolutely any creativity in that room, this could be a major starting point. It shows, for the first time ever, that the NHL is willing to accept a hybrid solution, or at least they have bridged the gap to actually talking about one.
I see a deal of "here's a strong luxury tax and revenue sharing", and if it doesn't do a good job of keeping player salaries down, then we'll automatically increase the luxury tax or move to a cap for X years.
The fact is that I do think the NHLPA thinks the Dec 9th proposal would be successful at keeping costs down, they just aren't willing to bet everything on the fact that it would do the same exact thing as a 55% salary cap - and why would it? if it was identical, they wouldn't have offered it. Yeah, I've rambled on enough.
In the meantime:
- the top 3 clubs average is 33% higher than the bottom 3 clubs average? So all they have to do is get 3 owners together and ask them not to spend much for just one year, and bingo, salary cap.
Put together conditions that are a compromise, and not a trap, and then maybe the NHL will have a good offer.
A another example:
What exactly is the difference between a salary cap at 55%, and an automatic cap kicking in if salaries exceed 55%? Answer: exactly nothing except for one year. Now, had they said that a cap would kick in at 55% or 57% if the salaries ever exceeded, not including revenue from a strong luxury tax, something around 60% - well then, that's still pretty cost certain for the owners, and provide a margin of error for the players. Then I could blame the NHLPA.
But on the good news, I dunno, if there's absolutely any creativity in that room, this could be a major starting point. It shows, for the first time ever, that the NHL is willing to accept a hybrid solution, or at least they have bridged the gap to actually talking about one.
I see a deal of "here's a strong luxury tax and revenue sharing", and if it doesn't do a good job of keeping player salaries down, then we'll automatically increase the luxury tax or move to a cap for X years.
The fact is that I do think the NHLPA thinks the Dec 9th proposal would be successful at keeping costs down, they just aren't willing to bet everything on the fact that it would do the same exact thing as a 55% salary cap - and why would it? if it was identical, they wouldn't have offered it. Yeah, I've rambled on enough.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2005 11:02PM by DeltaOne81.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 09, 2005 11:31PM
From ESPN:
[Q]Because even though it might take some time, the NHL's latest offer is a leg-hold trap that will inevitably tie the players to the type of hard salary cap they refuse to accept. It's a trick, subterfuge, a clever ruse, an end-around given that at least one of the triggers will be set off at the drop of the first puck.
Any time player compensation exceeds 55 percent of league-wide revenues, any time the gap between the average payrolls of the top three clubs and the bottom three clubs exceeds 33 percent, any time any three clubs pay out more than $42 million each in player compensation or any time the league-wide average team payroll exceeds $36.5 million, the players' plan is kaput and the league gets its way.
If those numbers look familiar it's because they are. It is basically the same deal the league has insisted upon from the beginning, but with some smoke and mirrors installed so it looks like the players don't even trust their own proposal to work.[/Q]
Full article: [sports.espn.go.com]
Its a brilliant piece of spin by Bettman, but the substance of the deal is nada. They're saying "okay, so you won't go with our deal... we'll go with your deal, but if any of the terms of our deal are exceeded, then our deal kicks in". Think about that. Really think about it for a minute. That is absolutely no different from the owners deal, except for 1 and only 1 year. "Oh, and better yet, the hair-triggers are under our control, and lets throw in a couple others which are also incredibly likely to happen."
Let's say you're renting a car, and its some weird rental agency where you can negotiate the terms of the deal. They want you to only drive 50 miles per day. And you say, no, I should be able to drive 100 miles per day. So they say "okay, you can drive 100 miles per day, but if you ever drive more than 50 miles in a day, then for all subsequent days, you can only drive 50 miles." Ummm, excuse me? That's not a deal. "Oh, and while we're at it, if you hit 2 puddles, you can only drive 50 miles per day after that"
[Q]The most telling part of Bettman's address was his rationalization for a proposal that is essentially two different philosophies jammed uncomfortably into the same collective bargaining agreement, as opposed to an actual negotiated settlement.
"We didn't seem to be able to come up with a middle or common ground," Bettman said.
That's because he never looked.[/Q]
[Q]Because even though it might take some time, the NHL's latest offer is a leg-hold trap that will inevitably tie the players to the type of hard salary cap they refuse to accept. It's a trick, subterfuge, a clever ruse, an end-around given that at least one of the triggers will be set off at the drop of the first puck.
Any time player compensation exceeds 55 percent of league-wide revenues, any time the gap between the average payrolls of the top three clubs and the bottom three clubs exceeds 33 percent, any time any three clubs pay out more than $42 million each in player compensation or any time the league-wide average team payroll exceeds $36.5 million, the players' plan is kaput and the league gets its way.
If those numbers look familiar it's because they are. It is basically the same deal the league has insisted upon from the beginning, but with some smoke and mirrors installed so it looks like the players don't even trust their own proposal to work.[/Q]
Full article: [sports.espn.go.com]
Its a brilliant piece of spin by Bettman, but the substance of the deal is nada. They're saying "okay, so you won't go with our deal... we'll go with your deal, but if any of the terms of our deal are exceeded, then our deal kicks in". Think about that. Really think about it for a minute. That is absolutely no different from the owners deal, except for 1 and only 1 year. "Oh, and better yet, the hair-triggers are under our control, and lets throw in a couple others which are also incredibly likely to happen."
Let's say you're renting a car, and its some weird rental agency where you can negotiate the terms of the deal. They want you to only drive 50 miles per day. And you say, no, I should be able to drive 100 miles per day. So they say "okay, you can drive 100 miles per day, but if you ever drive more than 50 miles in a day, then for all subsequent days, you can only drive 50 miles." Ummm, excuse me? That's not a deal. "Oh, and while we're at it, if you hit 2 puddles, you can only drive 50 miles per day after that"
[Q]The most telling part of Bettman's address was his rationalization for a proposal that is essentially two different philosophies jammed uncomfortably into the same collective bargaining agreement, as opposed to an actual negotiated settlement.
"We didn't seem to be able to come up with a middle or common ground," Bettman said.
That's because he never looked.[/Q]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2005 11:38PM by DeltaOne81.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Lauren '06 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 12:21AM
[Q]atb9 Wrote:
Wow, "Drop Dead Date" is a worse misnomer than "Death Tax" and "Marriage Penalty"
Don't be fooled, they won't actually drop dead.[/q]
Way down upon the Swannee River...
Honestly, I don't see why they're bothering to throw anything together to "try and save" this season. Might as well work on making everybody happy in an intelligent way and start NEXT season on time, rather than this pile of bogus 11th-hour proposals we've seen in the past few weeks.
Wow, "Drop Dead Date" is a worse misnomer than "Death Tax" and "Marriage Penalty"
Don't be fooled, they won't actually drop dead.[/q]
Way down upon the Swannee River...
Honestly, I don't see why they're bothering to throw anything together to "try and save" this season. Might as well work on making everybody happy in an intelligent way and start NEXT season on time, rather than this pile of bogus 11th-hour proposals we've seen in the past few weeks.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 03:03AM
[Q]Section A Banshee Wrote:
Honestly, I don't see why they're bothering to throw anything together to "try and save" this season. Might as well work on making everybody happy in an intelligent way and start NEXT season on time, rather than this pile of bogus 11th-hour proposals we've seen in the past few weeks.[/q]I agree completely. It's really a waste at this point. What really bothers me is still how long they waited before they even started negotiating.
Honestly, I don't see why they're bothering to throw anything together to "try and save" this season. Might as well work on making everybody happy in an intelligent way and start NEXT season on time, rather than this pile of bogus 11th-hour proposals we've seen in the past few weeks.[/q]I agree completely. It's really a waste at this point. What really bothers me is still how long they waited before they even started negotiating.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Cisco (---.rover.cornell.edu)
Date: February 10, 2005 07:41AM
I would like to take calgARI on here. This is not proof that the player's proposal is garbage, it is proof that Bettman only wants hockey socialism where the teams who won't spend are guaranteed to make a profit.
The triggers are a sham, and make no sense. Why should two teams get to spend more than 45 million, but the third team would be forced to decide between triggering a cap, or not spending what they want. There would be a race to be one of the two "free" teams (say, Detroit and Philly) and then Toronto, Dallas and Colorado would be left making a rather tought decision. Without a cap, teams can evaluate their own spending needs and abilities.
The Bettman deal is not about good hockey - it never has been. Two small budget teams were in the Stanley Cup finals least year. I'm a Colorado fan, and our large budget team frequently loses to small budget teams (Minnesota 2003). Money has very little coorolation to success in the NHL. Finally, what is "fair"about redistributing the money that dedicated fans in hockey markets spend to watch their teams. Colorado and Detroit (among others) sell out basically every game, which I contend should reward them with a team that can afford more stars. (Stars do not always win, see the Rangers).
All Bettman and the owners Politburo want is a guarnateed profit regardless of performance. There is a reason Chicago has not done well in the past few years, and it's not because they don't spend money.
A hard cap will dis-incent teams from spending to try and perform, and will do nothing to help the game. If you are Carolina, and you get a hefty redistribution check from the generous fans of Colorado, Detroit, Toronto, Philly etc, then why should you ever try to win?
Cisco
The triggers are a sham, and make no sense. Why should two teams get to spend more than 45 million, but the third team would be forced to decide between triggering a cap, or not spending what they want. There would be a race to be one of the two "free" teams (say, Detroit and Philly) and then Toronto, Dallas and Colorado would be left making a rather tought decision. Without a cap, teams can evaluate their own spending needs and abilities.
The Bettman deal is not about good hockey - it never has been. Two small budget teams were in the Stanley Cup finals least year. I'm a Colorado fan, and our large budget team frequently loses to small budget teams (Minnesota 2003). Money has very little coorolation to success in the NHL. Finally, what is "fair"about redistributing the money that dedicated fans in hockey markets spend to watch their teams. Colorado and Detroit (among others) sell out basically every game, which I contend should reward them with a team that can afford more stars. (Stars do not always win, see the Rangers).
All Bettman and the owners Politburo want is a guarnateed profit regardless of performance. There is a reason Chicago has not done well in the past few years, and it's not because they don't spend money.
A hard cap will dis-incent teams from spending to try and perform, and will do nothing to help the game. If you are Carolina, and you get a hefty redistribution check from the generous fans of Colorado, Detroit, Toronto, Philly etc, then why should you ever try to win?
Cisco
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 09:15AM
As a side note, according to that article Peter Karmanos, owner of the Hurricanes, may have been a one to say that the deal was too generous to the players. First of all, if true, this formally proves once and for all that he's stupid, because its the same exact deal the owners were offering, just delayed a year.
Second, this jackass moves a hockey team to North Carolina, heart of ACC basketball and ACC football country, home to NASCAR, and now he has no revenue, few fans, and I'm sure a crappy tv contract - and the players have to pay for this? Carolina having to move or fold would be the best thing possible to come out of this lockout, I think that's one thing the owners and players should be able to agree on
(in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a long lost Whalers fan, but I don't think that's required to consider the move to Raleigh stupid - it just means we knew that Karmanos was stupid before everyone else
)
Second, this jackass moves a hockey team to North Carolina, heart of ACC basketball and ACC football country, home to NASCAR, and now he has no revenue, few fans, and I'm sure a crappy tv contract - and the players have to pay for this? Carolina having to move or fold would be the best thing possible to come out of this lockout, I think that's one thing the owners and players should be able to agree on
(in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a long lost Whalers fan, but I don't think that's required to consider the move to Raleigh stupid - it just means we knew that Karmanos was stupid before everyone else
)
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Jordan 04 (12.42.45.---)
Date: February 10, 2005 09:53AM
*crickets chirping*
Ho-hum. The NHL? What's that?
Pitchers and catchers report in a week.
Ho-hum. The NHL? What's that?
Pitchers and catchers report in a week.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: February 10, 2005 10:21AM
[Q]Cisco Wrote:
Money has very little coorolation to success in the NHL. [/q]
Come on now, that is a ridiculous statement. Here are the last 12 Stanley Cup winners.
2003-04 Tampa Bay Lightning
2002-03 New Jersey Devils
2001-02 Detroit Red Wings
2000-01 Colorado Avalanche
99-2000 New Jersey Devils
1998-99 Dallas Stars
1997-98 Detroit Red Wings
1996-97 Detroit Red Wings
1995-96 Colorado Avalanche
1994-95 New Jersey Devils
1993-94 New York Rangers
1992-93 Montreal Canadiens
The only one outside of the top 10 in payroll is the Tampa Bay Lightning (yes, even the Devils are in the top 10, although often lauded as a a "low-spending team".
As for this being "socialism", if you are the CEO of a company and you see a few wayward middle managers spending way over their budget, wouldn't you want to control their behavior? If you let them run rampant, your company will eventually go under. Bettman understands this, and knows he needs to make sure his business is profitable and sustainable.
The NFL is the most successful sports league in the world (except for possibly NASCAR), and they have a "socialist" system that oppresses players and dooms owners of good teams to give some money to bad ones. Do you see many owners/players running home crying from their lack of money? It is a very logical business model, and nearly everyone comes out profiting in the end. It clearly doesn't eliminate the potential for someone to dominate either, as we can see with the Patriots.
The current NHL proposal gives the players about half of league profits, and that still isn't enough for them.
Money has very little coorolation to success in the NHL. [/q]
Come on now, that is a ridiculous statement. Here are the last 12 Stanley Cup winners.
2003-04 Tampa Bay Lightning
2002-03 New Jersey Devils
2001-02 Detroit Red Wings
2000-01 Colorado Avalanche
99-2000 New Jersey Devils
1998-99 Dallas Stars
1997-98 Detroit Red Wings
1996-97 Detroit Red Wings
1995-96 Colorado Avalanche
1994-95 New Jersey Devils
1993-94 New York Rangers
1992-93 Montreal Canadiens
The only one outside of the top 10 in payroll is the Tampa Bay Lightning (yes, even the Devils are in the top 10, although often lauded as a a "low-spending team"
.
As for this being "socialism", if you are the CEO of a company and you see a few wayward middle managers spending way over their budget, wouldn't you want to control their behavior? If you let them run rampant, your company will eventually go under. Bettman understands this, and knows he needs to make sure his business is profitable and sustainable.
The NFL is the most successful sports league in the world (except for possibly NASCAR), and they have a "socialist" system that oppresses players and dooms owners of good teams to give some money to bad ones. Do you see many owners/players running home crying from their lack of money? It is a very logical business model, and nearly everyone comes out profiting in the end. It clearly doesn't eliminate the potential for someone to dominate either, as we can see with the Patriots.
The current NHL proposal gives the players about half of league profits, and that still isn't enough for them.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 10:46AM
[Q]Jordan 04 Wrote:
*crickets chirping*
Ho-hum. The NHL? What's that?
Pitchers and catchers report in a week. [/q]
baseball sucks
*crickets chirping*
Ho-hum. The NHL? What's that?
Pitchers and catchers report in a week. [/q]
baseball sucks
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 11:04AM
After giving it some thought I do agree that this latest proposal is mostly smoke and mirrors, though it could serve as a starting point for a future deal if the triggers are actually negotiated. The players say that they're proposed system will control salaries. The owners think it won't. So the idea of using the one system until the facts demonstrate that it won't work to control salaries sounds reasonable. You need triggers that aren't virtually automatic and you probably need some independant mechanism to verify that the owners weren't overspending on purpose to have the cap kick in.
[q]All Bettman and the owners Politburo want is a guarnateed profit regardless of performance. [/q]And what's wrong with that? That's not socialism, it's good capitalism. The NHL doesn't exist for the purpose of awarding Lord Stanley's cup to the best hockey players. It exists to make money. Period, end of sentence. Anything the owners can do to guarantee profit is a good business decision. Now, success on the ice certainly tends to bring fans and money too, but it's no guarantee.
[q]All Bettman and the owners Politburo want is a guarnateed profit regardless of performance. [/q]And what's wrong with that? That's not socialism, it's good capitalism. The NHL doesn't exist for the purpose of awarding Lord Stanley's cup to the best hockey players. It exists to make money. Period, end of sentence. Anything the owners can do to guarantee profit is a good business decision. Now, success on the ice certainly tends to bring fans and money too, but it's no guarantee.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 11:22AM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
After giving it some thought I do agree that this latest proposal is mostly smoke and mirrors, though it could serve as a starting point for a future deal if the triggers are actually negotiated. The players say that they're proposed system will control salaries. The owners think it won't. So the idea of using the one system until the facts demonstrate that it won't work to control salaries sounds reasonable. You need triggers that aren't virtually automatic and you probably need some independant mechanism to verify that the owners weren't overspending on purpose to have the cap kick in.[/q]
Exactly. I agree. This could be a good starting point if the NHL would consider triggers that, as you said, aren't "virtually automatic" and completely manipulatable.
However, I don't have a lot of hope. In 6 months, the owners have changed their offer from 53.2% to 54%. So what makes me think that they'll be willing to negotiate the triggers? They haven't negotiated anything else yet. If we follow the same logic they're say, "alright, we'll make the great sarcrifice, and the top 3 teams have to exceed the bottom 3 teams by thirty-FOUR percent. Man, we're really being generous with you guys" (and heck, that would be 25% of a bigger compromise than they've made before ( 0.8% before, that would be a full, scary, 1%).
Think of the MLB negotations a few years back. Selig 'n' company wanted a strong luxury tax at $90-something million. The players wanted a weak luxury tax at $150, $160 millino or some such. What was the agreements? A rising scale of taxes from 10% to 40%, with a rising scale of limits from $115 to $135 million ish. That's called negotiating, that's how you compromise and reach a deal. Not this less than 1% bullshit. At the best its disingenuous, at worst its designed to cause an impasse.
Before the lockout, the NHL's official document on the CBA negotiations called for players and owners to work together to make stronger NHL. But what's Bettman's definition of "working together"? Apparently its "we write the CBA and you sign it - there, we worked together." Cause that's about all they've offered.
Btw, I find it very interesting that when I respond to Ari's pro-owner stuff, he doesn't seem to ever argue back... I like you Ari, I'm not trying to cause a fight, but I don't mind a spirited debate. Unless of course you've realized that Bettman tricked you too, and this whole thing is really just the owners proposal delayed one year, and not a compromise at all.
After giving it some thought I do agree that this latest proposal is mostly smoke and mirrors, though it could serve as a starting point for a future deal if the triggers are actually negotiated. The players say that they're proposed system will control salaries. The owners think it won't. So the idea of using the one system until the facts demonstrate that it won't work to control salaries sounds reasonable. You need triggers that aren't virtually automatic and you probably need some independant mechanism to verify that the owners weren't overspending on purpose to have the cap kick in.[/q]
Exactly. I agree. This could be a good starting point if the NHL would consider triggers that, as you said, aren't "virtually automatic" and completely manipulatable.
However, I don't have a lot of hope. In 6 months, the owners have changed their offer from 53.2% to 54%. So what makes me think that they'll be willing to negotiate the triggers? They haven't negotiated anything else yet. If we follow the same logic they're say, "alright, we'll make the great sarcrifice, and the top 3 teams have to exceed the bottom 3 teams by thirty-FOUR percent. Man, we're really being generous with you guys" (and heck, that would be 25% of a bigger compromise than they've made before ( 0.8% before, that would be a full, scary, 1%).
Think of the MLB negotations a few years back. Selig 'n' company wanted a strong luxury tax at $90-something million. The players wanted a weak luxury tax at $150, $160 millino or some such. What was the agreements? A rising scale of taxes from 10% to 40%, with a rising scale of limits from $115 to $135 million ish. That's called negotiating, that's how you compromise and reach a deal. Not this less than 1% bullshit. At the best its disingenuous, at worst its designed to cause an impasse.
Before the lockout, the NHL's official document on the CBA negotiations called for players and owners to work together to make stronger NHL. But what's Bettman's definition of "working together"? Apparently its "we write the CBA and you sign it - there, we worked together." Cause that's about all they've offered.
Btw, I find it very interesting that when I respond to Ari's pro-owner stuff, he doesn't seem to ever argue back... I like you Ari, I'm not trying to cause a fight, but I don't mind a spirited debate. Unless of course you've realized that Bettman tricked you too, and this whole thing is really just the owners proposal delayed one year, and not a compromise at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2005 11:27AM by DeltaOne81.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: February 10, 2005 11:29AM
[Q]atb9 Wrote:
a worse misnomer than "Death Tax" and "Marriage Penalty".[/q]
Isn't "Marriage Penalty" less a misnomer than a tautology?
a worse misnomer than "Death Tax" and "Marriage Penalty".[/q]
Isn't "Marriage Penalty" less a misnomer than a tautology?
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Jacob 03 (---.mobility-dn.psu.edu)
Date: February 10, 2005 11:31AM
grant- i'm so disappointed in you, i don't know where to start
i'll ignore the shoddy statistical analysis, poor analogy, and parenthetical invocation of nascar though, because your points are still pretty obvious. one line struck me as particularly funny, though.
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
It clearly doesn't eliminate the potential for someone to dominate either, as we can see with the Patriots.
[/q]
you cite this as if it's a good thing. and that's fine (it's certainly a good thing for pats fans, at least). but on the most superficial level, it would be evidence of suffering parity in the nfl. this also isn't the end of the world, but parity is basically the only argument for the nfl's business model that the average nfl fan can actually understand. and yet, despite the fact that one team has won three superbowls in four years, there are no cries for systematic changes to increase the nfl's parity. why does this bother me?
this bothers me because after a decade that saw the most parity in MLB baseball in almost a century, MLB (along with the sportsmedia) managed to convince the fans that the players were ruining baseball not through arguments about payroll disparity, (possibly false) statements about teams losing money, or rising ticket prices...but through the mere fact that the yankees won three championships in the last four years. maybe someday people will get sick of the pats winning, and the NFL will use that to push through some changes it's been dying to make.
[EDIT: corrected a homophone]
i'll ignore the shoddy statistical analysis, poor analogy, and parenthetical invocation of nascar though, because your points are still pretty obvious. one line struck me as particularly funny, though.
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
It clearly doesn't eliminate the potential for someone to dominate either, as we can see with the Patriots.
[/q]
you cite this as if it's a good thing. and that's fine (it's certainly a good thing for pats fans, at least). but on the most superficial level, it would be evidence of suffering parity in the nfl. this also isn't the end of the world, but parity is basically the only argument for the nfl's business model that the average nfl fan can actually understand. and yet, despite the fact that one team has won three superbowls in four years, there are no cries for systematic changes to increase the nfl's parity. why does this bother me?
this bothers me because after a decade that saw the most parity in MLB baseball in almost a century, MLB (along with the sportsmedia) managed to convince the fans that the players were ruining baseball not through arguments about payroll disparity, (possibly false) statements about teams losing money, or rising ticket prices...but through the mere fact that the yankees won three championships in the last four years. maybe someday people will get sick of the pats winning, and the NFL will use that to push through some changes it's been dying to make.
[EDIT: corrected a homophone]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2005 02:47PM by Jacob 03.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 11:43AM
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
atb9 Wrote:
a worse misnomer than "Death Tax" and "Marriage Penalty".[/Q]
Isn't "Marriage Penalty" less a misnomer than a tautology? [/q]
You're 12 hours late, Greg! Where have you been?
___________________________
24 is the devil
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 11:55AM
The unprecedented parity that MLB saw in the 80's (9 franchises won the WS, 4 others lost in the WS out of 26 total) was largely fueled by collusion. Or at least that's the common wisdom. Free agency allowed players to move around but collusion kept salaries reasonable.
Me, I'm all for collusion. But then I see very little wrong with the owners declaring an impasse and implementing whatever rules they want.
Me, I'm all for collusion. But then I see very little wrong with the owners declaring an impasse and implementing whatever rules they want.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Jacob 03 (---.mobility-dn.psu.edu)
Date: February 10, 2005 12:13PM
the decade of unprecedented parity to which i was referring was the 1990s (the anti-Yankees arguments coming at the end of 1999 after their third world series of the decade). this was a decade that had the most competitive balance in ninety years, despite the fact that one team won three world series in four years. the measure of "who won the world series that year" as a gauge of competitive balance is sickeningly arbitrary, unrepresentative, and pretty much inaccurate.
though i guess there's an argument to be made that parity and competitive balance are two completely different things, i wouldn't want either measured simply by the last team standing of a particular year.
though i guess there's an argument to be made that parity and competitive balance are two completely different things, i wouldn't want either measured simply by the last team standing of a particular year.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 12:24PM
Heck, isn't every salary cap or luxury tax "collusion?" If LM and Boeing sat down and agreed not to spend more than X percentage of revenue on salaries, the feds would be jumping down there throats faster than, well, I don't know what... I know it's different, because the teams are really part of the same company (the NHL), but still.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: February 10, 2005 12:26PM
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
The NFL is the most successful sports league in the world (except for possibly NASCAR)[/q]
Whoa there. NASCAR's just starting to peck at Canada and Mexico, whereas almost a billion people a year watch Formula 1 globally. I'd also venture that somthing like the English Premiere League has a larger global following than the NFL.
The NFL is the most successful sports league in the world (except for possibly NASCAR)[/q]
Whoa there. NASCAR's just starting to peck at Canada and Mexico, whereas almost a billion people a year watch Formula 1 globally. I'd also venture that somthing like the English Premiere League has a larger global following than the NFL.
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 12:55PM
[q] Heck, isn't every salary cap or luxury tax "collusion?"[/q]Sure, but the law treats it differently when the collusion is negotiated in a bargaining agreement. There is a fundamental difference between sports leagues and other industries, because a sports team's financial success strongly depends on the success (or at least viability) of your competitor. An absolute monopoly on government aerospace contracts would we great for Lockheed's bottom line (and my 401k) but that kind of dominance wouldn't be good for the yankees, Onion articles aside.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: February 10, 2005 02:34PM
[Q]Jacob 03 Wrote:
Tub(a) Wrote:
It clearly doesn't eliminate the potential for someone to dominate either, as we can see with the Patriots.
[/Q]
but on the most superficial level, it would be evidence of suffering parity in the nfl. this also isn't the end of the world, but parity is basically the only argument for the nfl's business model that the average nfl fan can actually understand. and yet, despite the fact that one team has one three superbowls in four years, there are no cries for systematic changes to increase the nfl's parity.
<snip>
maybe someday people will get sick of the pats winning, and the NFL will use that to push through some changes it's been dying to make. [/q]
Sorry, don't mean to turn this into yet another football thread, but I couldn't leave this comment alone.
First, let me say that the Pats have put together truly special in Foxboro. To do this in the era of free agency speaks highly of the organization put together by Belichick and Bob Kraft.
That having been said, you're forgetting one little thing:
2004 Super Bowl: won 24 - 21 vs Philadelphia Eagles
2003 Super Bowl: won 32 - 29 vs. Carolina Panthers
2001 Super Bowl: won 20 - 17 vs. St. Louis Rams
Then consider:
2003 Divisional Playoff: won 17-14 vs. the Titans
2001 Divisional Playoff: won 16-13 vs. the Raiders
All 3 super bowl wins, and 5 of the last 9 postseason wins have been by 3 little points. Adam Vinatieri is a great kicker and I'd love to have him on my team if we didn't already have Akers, but how many times can you go to the well?
Given the small margin of victory, I just don't see the Pats winning 3 of the next 4. They're a great team, but let's not pretend all roads to the next 10 Superbowls lead through Foxboro.*
*(unless you're the Dolphins, in which case, yes, you hafta go through Foxboro.)
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Jordan 04 (12.42.45.---)
Date: February 10, 2005 02:53PM
[Q]jeh25 Wrote:
Jacob 03 Wrote:
Tub(a) Wrote:
It clearly doesn't eliminate the potential for someone to dominate either, as we can see with the Patriots.
[/Q]
but on the most superficial level, it would be evidence of suffering parity in the nfl. this also isn't the end of the world, but parity is basically the only argument for the nfl's business model that the average nfl fan can actually understand. and yet, despite the fact that one team has one three superbowls in four years, there are no cries for systematic changes to increase the nfl's parity.
<snip>
maybe someday people will get sick of the pats winning, and the NFL will use that to push through some changes it's been dying to make. [/Q]
Sorry, don't mean to turn this into yet another football thread, but I couldn't leave this comment alone.
First, let me say that the Pats have put together truly special in Foxboro. To do this in the era of free agency speaks highly of the organization put together by Belichick and Bob Kraft.
That having been said, you're forgetting one little thing:
2004 Super Bowl: won 24 - 21 vs Philadelphia Eagles
2003 Super Bowl: won 32 - 29 vs. Carolina Panthers
2001 Super Bowl: won 20 - 17 vs. St. Louis Rams
Then consider:
2003 Divisional Playoff: won 17-14 vs. the Titans
2001 Divisional Playoff: won 16-13 vs. the Raiders
All 3 super bowl wins, and 5 of the last 9 postseason wins have been by 3 little points. Adam Vinatieri is a great kicker and I'd love to have him on my team if we didn't already have Akers, but how many times can you go to the well?
Given the small margin of victory, I just don't see the Pats winning 3 of the next 4. They're a great team, but let's not pretend all roads to the next 10 Superbowls lead through Foxboro.*
*(unless you're the Dolphins, in which case, yes, you hafta go through Foxboro.)[/q]
Margin of victory is the argument against the Patriots dynasty continuing?That seems pretty weak to me.
This isn't basketball, where the different in a 99-98 game at the end might be a layup attempt in the 2nd quarter that rimmed out.
I don't think it's mere luck or coincidence that the Patriots were on the winning end of all of these close games. Whether it's by 1 point, 4 points, or 10 points, their players have made playes, and more importantly, their coaches have devised brilliant game plans and in-game adjustments to put the team in a position to win games.
Additionally, I wish I had some stats handy to back this up, but I'd imagine the average margin of victory for the entire NFL is only in the range of 3-5 points, and maybe even less in the playoffs, over the long-term.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: February 10, 2005 02:58PM
[Q]Jordan 04 Wrote:Additionally, I wish I had some stats handy to back this up, but I'd imagine the average margin of victory for the entire NFL is only in the range of 3-5 points, and maybe even less in the playoffs, over the long-term.[/q]
5.7 over the last 10 years.
5.7 over the last 10 years.
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: February 10, 2005 03:14PM
[Q]Jordan 04 Wrote:
Additionally, I wish I had some stats handy to back this up, but I'd imagine the average margin of victory for the entire NFL is only in the range of 3-5 points, and maybe even less in the playoffs, over the long-term.[/q]
3 points is the mode, but it certainly isn't the mean or median. 52% of NFL games are won by a TD or more.
[12.110.37.23]
Additionally, I wish I had some stats handy to back this up, but I'd imagine the average margin of victory for the entire NFL is only in the range of 3-5 points, and maybe even less in the playoffs, over the long-term.[/q]
3 points is the mode, but it certainly isn't the mean or median. 52% of NFL games are won by a TD or more.
[12.110.37.23]
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Jordan 04 (12.42.45.---)
Date: February 10, 2005 03:27PM
[Q]jeh25 Wrote:
Jordan 04 Wrote:
Additionally, I wish I had some stats handy to back this up, but I'd imagine the average margin of victory for the entire NFL is only in the range of 3-5 points, and maybe even less in the playoffs, over the long-term.[/Q]
3 points is the mode, but it certainly isn't the mean or median. 52% of NFL games are won by a TD or more.
[12.110.37.23][/q]
Or, 48% of NFL games are won by a less than a TD
Age, is that all game, regular season, or playoff? I'd be interested what just the playoff numbers had to say.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 03:31PM
Back on topic, anyone? I mean, I know this is eLF, but we actually have a lot of room to explore on the NHL CBA if you wanted to. I haven't really seen anyone defend the owners, other than Ari - especially their complete lack of negotiation. The only significant difference between their offer 8 months ago and their offer yesterday was 0.8% and some smoke and mirrors. Sure, there's a lot of debate to be had about where exactly the correct answer lies, but the owners won't talk about any of it.
I mean, I know this is eLF, but we actually have a lot of room to explore on the NHL CBA if you wanted to. I haven't really seen anyone defend the owners, other than Ari - especially their complete lack of negotiation. The only significant difference between their offer 8 months ago and their offer yesterday was 0.8% and some smoke and mirrors. Sure, there's a lot of debate to be had about where exactly the correct answer lies, but the owners won't talk about any of it.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 03:36PM
You're not going to get me to defend the owners, unless someone is going to point out the person who held a gun to their heads and forced them to sign those big contracts. They want to win AND they want guaranteed profits. Egotistical AND greedy - not a good combination.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: February 10, 2005 03:51PM
I'm not sure. It didn't specify, but it did say that that margin is much higher than it was in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 04:35PM
[q]You're not going to get me to defend the owners, unless someone is going to point out the person who held a gun to their heads and forced them to sign those big contracts. They want to win AND they want guaranteed profits. Egotistical AND greedy - not a good combination.[/q]The problem with the auction market for free agents is that all it takes is one owner to act irrationally or make a bad assumption abaout a player's worth and the market becomes inflated. It's easy to act irrationally when you want to win, which the majority of sports owners do. In an ideal free market situation this would be less of a problem because the owners that consistently made bad decisions (overpaying) would go out of business. But of course bad franchises don't ever go under anymore.
I don't think it's unreasonable for the owners to want a system which tempers and limits the tendency to act irrationally, thereby assuring a better bottom line.
I don't think it's unreasonable for the owners to want a system which tempers and limits the tendency to act irrationally, thereby assuring a better bottom line.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Pete Godenschwager (---.chem.cornell.edu)
Date: February 10, 2005 04:36PM
[Q]They want to win AND they want guaranteed profits. Egotistical AND greedy - not a good combination.[/Q]
I would hope that any buisness person would want both to put out a good product and to make a profit.
I would hope that any buisness person would want both to put out a good product and to make a profit.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 05:27PM
[q]I would hope that any buisness person would want both to put out a good product and to make a profit.[/q]I don't know if this is a quote (er, paraphrase) or legend, but Connie Mack, long time manager owner of the Philadelphia Athletics said that he preferred a team that was in the pennant race all year long but then finished 3rd or 4th. That way you aintained fan interest, but didn't have to reward the players because they didn't win. I guess that's wanting to put out a good, but not too good product.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 05:37PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
I would hope that any buisness person would want both to put out a good product and to make a profit.[/Q]
I don't know if this is a quote (er, paraphrase) or legend, but Connie Mack, long time manager owner of the Philadelphia Athletics said that he preferred a team that was in the pennant race all year long but then finished 3rd or 4th. That way you aintained fan interest, but didn't have to reward the players because they didn't win. I guess that's wanting to put out a good, but not too good product.[/q]
Certainly seems to be the Phillies M.O. currently. too.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.yw.yu.edu)
Date: February 10, 2005 06:15PM
[Q]Jacob 03 Wrote:
... parity is basically the only argument for the nfl's business model that the average nfl fan can actually understand.[/q]This isn't true. The NFL's business model also makes it possible for small-market teams like Green Bay to benefit from the league's massively profitable TV contract and remain viable, which wouldn't necessarily be possible with local TV contracts and no revenue-sharing.
... parity is basically the only argument for the nfl's business model that the average nfl fan can actually understand.[/q]This isn't true. The NFL's business model also makes it possible for small-market teams like Green Bay to benefit from the league's massively profitable TV contract and remain viable, which wouldn't necessarily be possible with local TV contracts and no revenue-sharing.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Jacob 03 (---.carlsl01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: February 10, 2005 07:03PM
well, you're giving the average nfl fan more credit than i would give them, josh (how many of those packers fans sit down and talk about this stuff like most of the elynah crowd do?). but i obviously err on a side some would describe as condescending to them. at no point did i mean to imply there were no other benefits of the nfl model, simply that its justification was simplified for its fan base.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.yw.yu.edu)
Date: February 10, 2005 07:16PM
Perhaps I am giving average fans too much credit. I guess I can't really say one way or the other. *shrug*
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: puff (---.pn.at.cox.net)
Date: February 10, 2005 07:38PM
As a bills fan, most message boards i've come across about them are like this:
"We're gonna kick thier ass."
"bledsoe sucks"
And of course the normal, how good is this player/who are we signing/who got released and all that (not much of it is more than what you find at www.espn.com)
I'll go out on a limb and claim that the average avid cornell hockey fan, is more knowledgable of the workings of this game, than the average avid football fan (i'm bettign we're less drunk at the games too). When the playoff picture was developing this season, i got sick of people trying to say they knew how tiebreakers worked (wrongly), and then argue with me when i would point them to a knowledgable website (like nfl.com or espn).
So no Jacob, i don't think i would call you condescending.
BTW, before i got to Cornell the only sport i followed regularly was football. NFL playoff selection and seeding is so much easier than this hockey mysticism.
"We're gonna kick thier ass."
"bledsoe sucks"
And of course the normal, how good is this player/who are we signing/who got released and all that (not much of it is more than what you find at www.espn.com)
I'll go out on a limb and claim that the average avid cornell hockey fan, is more knowledgable of the workings of this game, than the average avid football fan (i'm bettign we're less drunk at the games too). When the playoff picture was developing this season, i got sick of people trying to say they knew how tiebreakers worked (wrongly), and then argue with me when i would point them to a knowledgable website (like nfl.com or espn).
So no Jacob, i don't think i would call you condescending.
BTW, before i got to Cornell the only sport i followed regularly was football. NFL playoff selection and seeding is so much easier than this hockey mysticism.
___________________________
tewinks '04
stir crazy...
tewinks '04
stir crazy...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2005 07:44PM by puff.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 10, 2005 09:51PM
What are the chances that Gary Bettman is really an NBA ploy to eliminate the winter competition? 
A waste of effort perhaps, but a significant possibility
A waste of effort perhaps, but a significant possibility
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Jordan 04 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: February 10, 2005 10:03PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
What are the chances that Gary Bettman is really an NBA ploy to eliminate the winter competition?
A waste of effort perhaps, but a significant possibility [/q]
Was the NHL really a competitor of the NBA? Weren't they getting lower ratings than women's badminton?
What are the chances that Gary Bettman is really an NBA ploy to eliminate the winter competition?
A waste of effort perhaps, but a significant possibility [/q]
Was the NHL really a competitor of the NBA? Weren't they getting lower ratings than women's badminton?
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: February 10, 2005 10:03PM
The NHL owners may be fatcats who could afford to subsidize their teams' losses if they chose to by drawing down their personal fortunes. But that's different from the question of whether the teams cost more, way more, to operate than their ticket, TV, concession stand, and game-worn jersey revenue and tax breaks bring in.
A pox on all their houses. Players, too.
A pox on all their houses. Players, too.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 10, 2005 10:07PM
Jordan,
That's why I said it would be a waste of effort. Oh, and it was a joke_
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
The NHL owners may be fatcats who could afford to subsidize their teams' losses if they chose to by drawing down their personal fortunes. But that's different from the question of whether the teams cost more, way more, to operate than their ticket, TV, concession stand, and game-worn jersey revenue and tax breaks bring in. [/q]
Agreed. But that's also a completely different question from if a salary cap is needed to fix the problem, and from whether a 54% cap is the first, last, and only offer the NHL should make.
That's why I said it would be a waste of effort. Oh, and it was a joke
_
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
The NHL owners may be fatcats who could afford to subsidize their teams' losses if they chose to by drawing down their personal fortunes. But that's different from the question of whether the teams cost more, way more, to operate than their ticket, TV, concession stand, and game-worn jersey revenue and tax breaks bring in. [/q]
Agreed. But that's also a completely different question from if a salary cap is needed to fix the problem, and from whether a 54% cap is the first, last, and only offer the NHL should make.
Announcement on Feb. 15th
Posted by: kaaren (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: February 14, 2005 02:19PM
Bettman to announce cancellation of season tomorrow.
www.tsn.ca
www.tsn.ca
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: February 14, 2005 02:23PM
If a league falls in the forest...
Re: Announcement on Feb. 15th
Posted by: Jordan 04 (12.42.45.---)
Date: February 14, 2005 02:43PM
[Q]kaaren Wrote:
Bettman to announce cancellation of season tomorrow.
www.tsn.ca[/q]
Good timing. Pitchers and catchers in 2 days
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, see ya, NHL.
Bettman to announce cancellation of season tomorrow.
www.tsn.ca[/q]
Good timing. Pitchers and catchers in 2 days
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, see ya, NHL.
Re: Drop Dead Date Set
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: February 14, 2005 05:56PM
I want Bettman and Goodenow out. Get someone who actually gives a damn about the NHL involved in the negotiations.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.