No the point is to force parity. We have the most competitive in all of sports why shouldn't he be allowed to spend 80 m on player salaries and ice a great team every year? Just because some questionable teams can't and wont even exist without RS? Too bad then they shouldn't have an NHL team.
Liked the pre 2005 era much better...
Because that would make the league less, and not more, competitive? I'm not sure we're seeing eye to eye on the definition of competitive. More teams, all with a reasonable chance of winning in any given year, is competitive. Less teams, dominated by those that spend the most, is not competitive. You apparently favor having fewer teams, with success contingent on who can buy the most free agents, which if fine. But don't sit here and preach about how you want more competition.
Also, I'm going to reiterate again, the players want revenue sharing too. So stop making it seem like revenue sharing is some awful sin perpetrated by Bettman and the league. Players want more teams, because more teams mean more jobs, and more money. As a matter of fact, the owners want more teams, the players want more teams, and the fans in places like Dallas, Nashville, Phoenix, and Carolina want more teams. The only people that want teams to fold are people like you...an extreme minority.
- hillbillywingsfan likes this