posts way less than 18% useful shit
- Nov 17, 2010
I read through the article and was coming to post something similar, but you worded it perfectly.Thanks fror the article. I do appreciate it and I am always seeking to learn, and I was not aware of Mike Moore's essay. That said, and noting that Moore seems like a decent chap, some of his argument perplexes me and seems to make the point he denies. Perhaps you can help me. For example, he admits that for decades the sponsorship system benefited the Habs (10k players on 750 teams), which he attributes to Selke and increased capital (I think market forces played a much larger role than he gives it credit for -- and more, the existing rules allowed for what amounts to a monopoly on the best payers. The sociological reasons, then, are less causal (the great man) as they are of an "elective affinity" type). He then suggests that it was unfair, for he notes that in the 1960s then President Clarence Campbell, knowing it was unfair and envisioning (and here I quote Moore) "a level playing field", made the NHL replace the sponsorship system with the draft. Unfortunately, the best players (at least for awhile) were already taken. In further speaking to the draft, Moore seizes on the fallacy of the "French Canadien" draft rule which, in deference to the Habs, gave them two FC players of their choice (as if they needed it), but then says it didn't help them. But what DID help was that as a result of the sponsorship rules the Habs were so "deeply stocked" with players that they could trade some of that stock to expansion teams hungry for basic NHL talent so they could garner a paying social base of fans (so it wasn't "just" Pollock after all). Interestingly, he omits that through such efforts the Habs amassed 17 first round draft picks from 1969-1974 (including the one that went to LaFleur). Up to 1979 the Habs won 22 championships. Since then? 2. Wonder why.
Is that how defensive Patriots fans sound when people bring up deflategate or spygate?