New Draft Lottery odds announced

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Of course not.

But that doesn't mean that the league can't push for some basic standards in the meantime.

It's a big business, and the business is entertainment.

There is going to be bad teams no matter what. Do you actually think Buffalos season somehow hurt the league in any significant way or if they won 5 more games it would somehow help the league in any significant way?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hackey

There is going to be bad teams no matter what. Do you actually think Buffalos season somehow hurt the league in any significant way or if they won 5 more games it would somehow help the league in any significant way?

Man you're black and white.

Of course there are bad teams. That doesn't mean the league isn't interested in maintaining standards of competitiveness - it is good for TV ratings, which is good for all teams, including Buffalo.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Man you're black and white.

Of course there are bad teams. That doesn't mean the league isn't interested in maintaining standards of competitiveness - it is good for TV ratings, which is good for all teams, including Buffalo.

So if Buffalo is marginally better somehow the ratings will be significantly better? Sorry I just don't see it. Ratings are maximized when teams are elite. No one cares to watch a slightly better Buffalo or Florida.

[Enoch Root]

Ratings are better when the league is competitive. See the NFL for guidance here, they are a great example.

As the league (NFL) became more competitive, ALL of the games became interesting and the TV ratings skyrocketed. Now, there is no talk of big market teams or small market teams - the whole league is stronger.

I don't really care if you don't see it because I am pretty sure the league does, and that it is part of their motivation for these changes.

[Itse]

A few separate points;

1) I don't think the league will be hurt in anyway if the team becoming a contender by drafting a Toews, Crosby or Ovechkin will at times be the 26th place team instead of the 30th place team.

I'll actually be surprised if there is going to be any statistical difference in how easily teams climb out of the cellar under the new system. After all, the number one pick will still mostly go to a pretty bad team.



2) For me personally, just the fact that I can pretty much stop thinking about our place in the standings and focus on cheering my team easily trumps any argument presented so far. I hated cheering for a better draft spot, even when other people were doing it. I also hated the arguments around it. This was more detrimental to my enjoyment of the game than anything else these last couple of seasons.



3) Somebody linked a study somewhere on this site, that suggested that in the NBA teams are more likely to get better by incremental improvements rather than drafting really high. Assuming that's correct, it would make sense that this would be even more so in the NHL, where a single superstar player generally has less impact on the game. Which would suggest that the previous system which essentially encouraged bad teams to draft high might have been somewhat counter-productive. (If someone remembers that article, please link it again?)



4) I hate how the most exciting rookies have been going to teams that suck. It takes all the excitement away from getting new hot players into the league, when you know they're probably not going to go anywhere for years. Watching a great rookie like Mackinnon work his magic in the playoffs has been a WAY too rare a treat.

For me personally, I think the most exciting scenario is when a great rookie comes in to help push a team a couple of spots and into the playoffs. Sign me up for a bit more of that.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Ratings are better when the league is competitive. See the NFL for guidance here, they are a great example.

As the league (NFL) became more competitive, ALL of the games became interesting and the TV ratings skyrocketed. Now, there is no talk of big market teams or small market teams - the whole league is stronger.

I don't really care if you don't see it because I am pretty sure the league does, and that it is part of their motivation for these changes.

Well first of all the NFL is an entirely different animal. There are 16 games a year. Majority of those games are played on one day. Secondly there were 13 teams in the NFL last year with below .500 records. The NHL had 5.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Well first of all the NFL is an entirely different animal. There are 16 games a year. Majority of those games are played on one day. Secondly there were 13 teams in the NFL last year with below .500 records. The NHL had 5.

Not to mention revenue sharing. NFL teams are highly subsidized because the betterment of the league is better than the wealth of the top 5 owners. The NHL has an old boys club within the board of governors who simply are too capitalistic to increase revenue sharing percentages. Look at the Winnipeg relocation fee for god's sake. A couple hundred million dollars in fees when Chipman was doing the league a favor by bailing out a dying Thrashers team? So instead of just handing over the keys, a couple of owners get little more rich and then put Winnipeg in a tough financial position right off the bat. The Jets have never been a cap spending team since re-entering the league. The league is short sighted.

@Enoch Root. TV contracts are for a long time and mostly regionally covered, so Buffalo icing a poor team has little bearing on the national coverage. Id argue that the NHL has had the worst national coverage contracts compared to the other big 3 during the last 10 years but has produced some of the healthiest parity, as indicated by the variance and spread between playoff and non-playoff teams.

[Newton]

If your drafting in the top 5 you are still getting a really good player. 1st overall pick is no guarantee of drafting the very best player in the draft anyways.

The league and teams are better off being as competitive as possible.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Hackey

So if Buffalo is marginally better somehow the ratings will be significantly better? Sorry I just don't see it. Ratings are maximized when teams are elite. No one cares to watch a slightly better Buffalo or Florida.

Not at all true. The Buffalo Sabres have the second-best local TV ratings of any american NHL franchise and they saw a drop of 13% in their viewership from the previous season. A great many people would care very much to see an improved team, even marginally.

Also, the teams which saw the most year-to-year increase in their ratings were the Coyotes, Islanders, Blackhawks, Wild and Rangers. None of these teams made a jump from marginal to elite, and only one was a truly elite team over the course of the season.

Conversely, the Flyers and Devils had the most disappointing seasons ratings-wise, despite Philly being a playoff team and the Devils being in the playoff hunt until the end of the season. This is a big reason why I expect, if the Flyers and/or Devils miss the playoffs, Eichel and/or McDavid will be wearing orange and/or red. The fix is in!