Originally Posted by
Gomez
applause Now have you anything to add to the discussion besides correcting spelling mistakes?
Sure. You raise some interesting thoughts that involve some complex issues related to recruiting, league finances, and player compensation.
Since the NCAA shuts out CHL players already, increasing player compensation would not affect college US eligibility, so it seems like paying players more should be a simple step.
However, I believe CHL players already get room & board paid for, university scholarships, weekly allowances, etc. so they are already getting significant compensation, even if it is not pure spending money. Such above-board compensation must be equal for all players across all teams, otherwise the wealthier teams would have a legitimized advantage. If the compensation is increased for all players, that would still give wealthier teams an advantage, since the added cost would be much harder for small market teams to absorb.
On that basis -- i.e. the league cannot condone variable compensation -- the under the table stuff becomes a tool some teams use to their advantage. Official disclosure of the situation would not be a solution, as it would mean the league acknowledging actions that are against the rules, which opens a whole bunch of legal issues.
The problem thus becomes one of enforcement of the rules to keep the black market in check. I don't know how a players union would be able to address that, especially since a lot of players/agents/parents benefit from the system the way it is. It would be up to the small market teams to get the league administration to do more to enforce the recruitment rules, but sadly the bigger market teams usually have most of the political clout.
Anyway, a truly level playing field is an idealistic but not really a realistic goal. Sure, revenue sharing can go along way towards maintaining the long term viability of small market teams, but the downside is that poorly managed teams are supported along side well-managed teams in legitimately smaller markets.
Moreover, even if the financial playing field is made more level by revenue sharing and preventing black market payments, there are still the non-financial advantages some teams will always have -- bigger cities, larger buildings, more scout exposure, NHL team ownership, NHL team preferences for drafted players, better practice facilities, etc.
In summary, as I see it changing the rules to increase player compensation would negatively affect parity, unless there was some revenue sharing to protect small market teams. Better enforcement of the recruitment rules by the league would also go some way to levelling the playing field, but I doubt there would ever be a lot of support for that.
ps: My apologies about the correction. I just thought you would rather get the spelling right, since the two words mean very different things [no sarcasm intended].
The only good thunderstick is one shoved up a cowbell.