Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames
Can you please explain how the Olympics can be the best thing for the sport, but not the NHL? Bettman does everything in his power to have expansion teams in the US to build the popularity amongst markets that currently don't have regular hockey coverage. The Olympics is doing that for free.
|
Two misconceptions of yours require addressing:
1. The league's mandate to expand across the US predated Bettman by several years. (in fact, if you want to get right down to it, it predated Bettman by about 25 years).
2. As I have noted above, this is not 'free' publicity for the NHL. The NHL is not paying out of pocket to have the Olympics promote the sport of hockey, no. But this is an interruption to their business, and that costs. The risk of injury costs. The inability to use coverage or highlights costs. The ridiculous start time of the games dramatically stunts whatever ancillary benefit exists.
Once again, you are trying to take your emotional want as a fan and extrapolate it into the business realm. It doesn't work that way. And most of the emotional impact is driven by the desire for a best-on-best tournament. A revived World Cup takes care of that need easily. It would also take away most of the above concerns while resulting in a tangible financial benefit for both the owners and players - not to mention the federations of the participating nations.
Quote:
|
If the sport of hockey grows than of course the best league in hockey will grow. These owners will just be dead by the time that happens and would rather get paid for the next two weeks.
|
And now you are taking your emotional argument and transforming it into an
ad hominem attack. That is not an argument that will sway me, and it certainly won't sway anyone in the NHL.