Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
No no, I get that. What I'm saying though is you still have the same number of superstars but now you have a lower salary cap and fewer teams to take on the burden of star salaries. So the top salary goes down, but now you have a team full of $3 million dollar earners instead of having the money spread out more widely. There would be greater wage parody between the stars and the lower rung players because you have to fit the same number of stars on fewer teams so you can't afford to pay any one single player 20% of your total salary any more.
Not to mention that the remaining teams are taking in fewer gate admissions unless you figure out a way to have 20 teams still play 82 regular season games. The logistics of shrinking to 20 teams would be a nightmare. The logistics of trying to spread out the talent pool again would be a nightmare.
|
You have to fit the same number of stars on fewer teams -- true, but they aren't going to be making the same money they make now. And those 3 million dollar players will become 2 million dollar players and all the way down the line.
I don't really understand that stuff about logistics. They had an 80 or 82 game schedule not so long ago when the league had 21 teams. Distributing the players wouldn't be so difficult. The guys who can cut it in a smaller league get a job, the guys who can't don't.
Anyway, this is all hypothetical jibber-jabbering. The league isn't going to contract anytime soon, and if it does happen it'll be one team at a time.