Re: [hockhist] post away
- I was surprised that there was a perceived need to intervene on any of the
threads. I can only assume there were some significant difficulties before I
joined the list. There were a few things said that could have been said
better, but I didn't see anything I would consider really offensive.
Conflict is okay in my books.
> There are two threads I'd like to see killed:I would like to see this thread permanently killed. A variation on this
> NHL = horrible drivel
theme crops up in way too many topics and it dominates the listserv. I wish
we could all agree to disagree and never touch the subject again, but
whether one is a modernist or a traditionalist (or something in between)
seems to colour all opinions.
Almost all discussions eventually funnel into the same argument.
It is not the conflict that is troublesome - it is that the subject is
boring and frustrating. It is boring and frustrating even when I am one of
the participants. Everyone has heard everyone else's arguments. We are all
either preaching to the choir on this issue or trying to convert heathens
who are quite happy to wallow in heretical thoughts. It is a religious
argument, built around opposing articles of faith. It can never be settled.
I don't have any good suggestions. A Great Schism? Two lists?
> NHLPA/Union HahahohoheeheeFair enough, but this is a subject I'd really like to learn a lot more
about and illustrates the problem created by the Schism.
The NHL is a labour market and the labour market is one of my career
areas. I'd like to know more about the history of the NHLPA and how Eagleson
convinced the owners in 15 minutes to recognize the organization. How
Eagleson, Brewer and Pulford started out together and how Bobby ended up
being part of the hockey establishment, how Brewer became a pariah, and how
the Eagle ended up in jail.
I think there are great gaps in the history. What really happened is very
hazy. Who would not love to go through Carl Brewer's files? What happened to
the 55 page report about Eagleson's NHLPA, the one written by Ed Garvey?
How did the current collective agreement come into being? What kind of
reasoning went into the agreement? Where are the courts going with the
issue? There are a raft of subjects open to academic study, to labour market
The impact of the collective agreement on NHL hockey is a very
interesting topic. The impact on salaries of restricting free agency. The
impact of the rookie salary cap. A study of arbitration decisions. Has the
CBA impacted career length? Salaries have jumped. How much of that is
expansion, how much of that is increased revenue, and how much of that is
because of the CBA?
I think there are ways to figure real answers to these questions, answers
that go beyond mere opinion. How do we discuss this material while avoiding
the usual spiral into Bettman bashing and responses to the Bettman bashing?
I don't think it is possible.