Quote

---

...
-What was the goal of the previous contraction effort? Was it for the same reasons, or did the teams just go under? I don't know the details on that and would be glad to learn. As for the WH>, I don't see adding teams to the NHL as contraction.
...
-Reducing the rosters would be a problem. I think a 3 line game would be less entertaining as all three lines would be exhausted late in periods, particularly in OT (and in the playoff OT marathons). Also, the 4th line is where many young players get a chance to learn the game and earn a spot, I don't want to see it get even harder for unknowns to break into the league.

Again, great points, and thanks!

---

- In a strict sense, the disbanding of the WHA is not contraction (I can count too ). But there can be parallels drawn from it. The number of professional, "NHL" quality players was drastically reduced. What were the effects of this on salary (pre and post WHA)? What was the quality of play? There are contaction examples in the NFL and MLB as well (just don't know offhand). They should be examined before this conclusion is made.

- This point about reducing rosters... I heard from a sports station up here. An "old time hockey" player though of it (maybe Jean Belliveau??). So the league had smaller rosters at one time, and I don't think there was much problem with exhaustion of players. The 4th line is typically made of less talented, defensive specialists (can we say clutch and grab ). Reducing the roster would improve the average quality of player. The style would be faster, in general, and offensive production should increase. A more marketable product.

Either contraction or roster reduction would still hurt the younger player trying to break into the league. There would be fewer spots to obtain in the league overall.