Good points there by Rob and Heywire! IMO, it
would be in the best interests of the league and the
sport as a whole if there was a salary cap placed on
the teams.<br><br>What kind game do hockey fans enjoy
watching the most? The answer (despite what the media and
"experts" tell you) is a close-scoring, competitive game
which showcases all the finer aspects of the sport.
Fans want to see great goals, but they also want to
see great saves. They want to see great passes, but
they also want to see great defensive plays (at least
I do ;-) Fans want to see great hits and they want
to see great plays in general.<br><br>A 7-1 game,
unless the losing goaltender faced more than 70 shots or
someone tied the Phantom's goal-scoring record, is
usually not very fun to watch. I also agree that a 1-1
game can be quite boring, but if the pace is fast and
each team gets a good number of scoring chances, a 1-1
game can also be very exciting.<br><br>Anyhoo, getting
back to the point, a salary cap would benefit the
quality of play in the league by forcing organizations to
build *actual* teams. If Anaheim, for example, wished
to keep both Paul Kariya and Teemu Selanne, they
would most likely have to sacrifice a stronger
supporting cast.<br><br>With 30 teams in the league and a
limited number of top-caliber superstars, each team (if
they're smart) could have one superstar, a half-dozen
stars, and another half-dozen above-average players;
with the rest of the team being made up of
average/utility players. If this was the case, it wouldn't be
hard to see that many, if not most games, would be
much more competitive and exciting.<br><br>This
scenario could very likely lead to higher attendance and
greater profits for the teams. In turn, this could lead
to lower ticket prices, raising attendance even more
as more fans can afford to go to games.
Consequently, the initial profit loss due to lower ticket
prices could easily be forgotten...