Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB :   ....... which makes your comment that " you never see that in mlb " correct ? 
    Posted by Chowdahkid-


    Florida won it twice as a wildcard, the Angels did also in 2002.

    Oh, and that 2004 Sox team?  Wildcard.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB : Florida won it twice as a wildcard, the Angels did also in 2002. Oh, and that 2004 Sox team?  Wildcard.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    I can't believe we're talking baseball. Things are slow in the hockey world.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from heyoo. Show heyoo's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    Your right i should have phrazed my point better it was ment to say that the nhl has the best overall competition throughout the league. The mlb only has 8 playoff teams mean while the nhl has 16. If there was 16 playoff teams in the mlb, a 15 or 16 seed could never win. We just better hope we have an nhl season or were all going to be bored for the next year.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    For the four listed, I think I would put them in order as NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB.

    However, if you look beyond the big four, I think MLS has by far the most stable ownership and CBA structure. Each team has an owner-operator, but all revenues are split equally between every single team, and it is in fact centrally owned. The owner-operators are simply equal share holders in the greater league. Also, the league negotiates contracts, not the teams, so no one GM can drive up costs. It's taken awhile, but under this current system, the MLS is now profitable as a whole.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    For the four listed, I think I would put them in order as NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB. However, if you look beyond the big four, I think MLS has by far the most stable ownership and CBA structure. Each team has an owner-operator, but all revenues are split equally between every single team, and it is in fact centrally owned. The owner-operators are simply equal share holders in the greater league. Also, the league negotiates contracts, not the teams, so no one GM can drive up costs. It's taken awhile, but under this current system, the MLS is now profitable as a whole.
    Posted by red75


    Socialist sports?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    For the four listed, I think I would put them in order as NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB. However, if you look beyond the big four, I think MLS has by far the most stable ownership and CBA structure. Each team has an owner-operator, but all revenues are split equally between every single team, and it is in fact centrally owned. The owner-operators are simply equal share holders in the greater league. Also, the league negotiates contracts, not the teams, so no one GM can drive up costs. It's taken awhile, but under this current system, the MLS is now profitable as a whole.
    Posted by red75



    Not entirely true.  The teams have to negotiate with the players, there might be guidelines and a cap from the league ,  in the end the team pays for this player and the team finalizes the contract. 
    What doesn't count on the cap is what they call " a designated player" . He can make as much as he wants , usually a former European star but the team still pays and responsible for his salary.  Something like NFL has with their "franchise player" clause in their CBA.
    One of my clients owns a MLS team.
    See Chowdah, now we're talking soccer, AGAIN.
    Anyway the MLS system would never work in the NHL.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    Your right i should have phrazed my point better it was ment to say that the nhl has the best overall competition throughout the league. The mlb only has 8 playoff teams mean while the nhl has 16. If there was 16 playoff teams in the mlb, a 15 or 16 seed could never win. We just better hope we have an nhl season or were all going to be bored for the next year.
    Posted by heyoo


    Absolute hypothesis BUT I'm not so sure of that...With 2 hot starters in a 7 game format, it is quite conceivable that a 15 or 16 could win it... With all of the recent Wildcard winners, the WS winner could easily won by a "lesser" team, by induction, if more teams were added to the Playoff format.  This is why MLB recently handicapped the Wildcard winners by adding extra teams and a 1 game Playoff so they would have to use up their pitching "Ace" before the quarterfinal series.   
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from heyoo. Show heyoo's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    A 15 or 16 seed would be like the red sox winning the world series at this point in the season. Very unlikely but anything is possible, heard their working on flying cows in north korea.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    I read something quickly today about the Devils owner possibly being allowed to keep his team.

    Quebec moved.  Winnepeg moved.  Minnesota moved.  Atlanta moved.  Phoenix is a disaster.  Florida isn't much better. 

    How many other teams have faced economic issues recently?  Remember Boots Del Baggio and the Nashville backruptcy? 

    The NHL system is broken and will take a lot to overcome the NFL and MLB.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    I read something quickly today about the Devils owner possibly being allowed to keep his team. Quebec moved.  Winnepeg moved.  Minnesota moved.  Atlanta moved.  Phoenix is a disaster.  Florida isn't much better.  How many other teams have faced economic issues recently?  Remember Boots Del Baggio and the Nashville backruptcy?  The NHL system is broken and will take a lot to overcome the NFL and MLB.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    Quebec and Winnipeg moved because of a 60cent Canadian dollar.  No CBA in the world is going to help you if you're collecting revenue at a 40% handicap against your expenses.  There's a common thread in many of those other examples, too - terrible owners.  Del Baggio was a con artist, Norm Green was a huckster, and Jeff "Don't call me Dawson" Vanderbeek is a speculator.  Phoenix's owners left the city and the league holding the bag because they didn't do their due diligence to understand how viable their dream of a stadium-achored complex in the desert might be.  Turns out, not that viable.  That leaves two decidedly non-hockey markets.

    The real sign that the system is broken is that the NHL can't find stable ownership for its franchises.  NFL owners print their own money.  Some of the richest families own teams.  In the NHL, you have guys who couldn't cover payroll if they had to dip into their own pockets to do it.  Imagine if Balsillie had bought a franchise and six months later RIM begins to tank.  If NHL owners are greedy, it's because they often need the team to do what businesses are supposed to do - make money, pay dividends, grow in value.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB



    Guys...the system is not broken in the NHL.  It lags behind the NFL and MLB simply because it isn't as popular.  You don't have to be the biggest, to be viable.  If the NHL is sufferring from anything, it's the insistence that they are a 30 team league, or that the 30 locations today, need to stay there, despite no ones interest.  Despite this, and assorted other questionable business decisions, the NHL is very healthy overall.  It just needs minor tweaks, and all parties should participate.  Simply getting rid of Phoenix and the Islanders would make the league even much, much more successful.  We know it won't happen, but it would have a huge, huge economic impact, and it's an incredibly easy fix.  Systems that are broken can't be brought to life so effortlessly.
    There are dozens of business categories in north America teetering on irrelevancy, hundreds more in trouble.
    The NHL, is one of a very, very select few, enjoying record success.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB : Socialist sports?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    That's what your owners are insisting on
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    Simply getting rid of Phoenix and the Islanders would make the league even much, much more successful.  We know it won't happen, but it would have a huge, huge economic impact, and it's an incredibly easy fix.  Systems that are broken can't be brought to life so effortlessly. There are dozens of business categories in north America teetering on irrelevancy, hundreds more in trouble. The NHL, is one of a very, very select few, enjoying record success.
    Posted by stevegm


    Your easy fix is to walk away from about $300M in equity?  Or, if you mean moving the franchises to other cities, to remove a franchise that was home to one of the league's last true dynasties? 

    Isn't there also a conflict with the usual argument about "where the fans are in all of this?"  Isn't the most common point about the fans having power over these negotiations - as the customer, after all - that fans vote with their wallets and walk away from a loser.  Phoenix and the Islanders have been a joke for years.  Should the fans subsidize a losing team indefinitely or does that breed Leaf-like complacency?  Should the taxpayers of a new jurisdiction face a surtax to fund facilities needed to bring in a hobo team? 

    And I'll repeat a point I made earlier - the surest sign the system doesn't work the way it needs to is that the NHL can't find credible owners who can manage losing years and the impact that has on the bottom line.  Owners make money two ways - profit from revenue and value of the franchise.  It has become de rigeur for the player side to point out the increasing value of franchises, but an owner who doesn't have the cash flow to take a year by year loss or whose carrying a massive loan on a facility isn't in a position to forego profit from revenue.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB

    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB:
    In Response to Re: Evaluating Systems: NHL vs NBA vs NFL vs MLB : Your easy fix is to walk away from about $300M in equity?  Or, if you mean moving the franchises to other cities, to remove a franchise that was home to one of the league's last true dynasties?  Isn't there also a conflict with the usual argument about "where the fans are in all of this?"  Isn't the most common point about the fans having power over these negotiations - as the customer, after all - that fans vote with their wallets and walk away from a loser.  Phoenix and the Islanders have been a joke for years.  Should the fans subsidize a losing team indefinitely or does that breed Leaf-like complacency?  Should the taxpayers of a new jurisdiction face a surtax to fund facilities needed to bring in a hobo team?  And I'll repeat a point I made earlier - the surest sign the system doesn't work the way it needs to is that the NHL can't find credible owners who can manage losing years and the impact that has on the bottom line.  Owners make money two ways - profit from revenue and value of the franchise.  It has become de rigeur for the player side to point out the increasing value of franchises, but an owner who doesn't have the cash flow to take a year by year loss or whose carrying a massive loan on a facility isn't in a position to forego profit from revenue.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    I'm not saying it's the best one, I'm merely suggesting it's an easy way to make big gains.
    As far as the fans, they're the ones dumb enough to pay 12 bucks for a watered down beer, and $200 for a good seat.  I've never inferred they get much consideration.
    And "the most common point" has been nothing more than what constitutes a fair deal.
    Although I respect your opinions and enjoy reading your posts, I disagree stable ownership is a problem.  There are a number of business models that will work in bona fide markets, and the ability to withstand huge losses in boom times isn't one of them.  I think it would be a shame for the Islanders to sink, there also needs to be the expectation to swim though.  It should also be pointed out, that the fact they "didn't" spend isn't what sank them.  Owning one of these businesses should require a bit of expertise, don't you think?  The Islanders are poster child for poor business decisions.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share