Ryan Dadoun of ProHockeyTalk.com poses an interesting question initially brought upon by Adam Proteau of The Hockey News.

One idea we've seen all professional sports in North America move towards recently is parity: having more teams have a chance at competing for a championship. Long gone are the days of dynasties, teams that dominated season after season. Free agency and salary caps, among other variables, can be attributed to that.

Should the NHL move towards MORE parity than they already have in their sport?

...A hard salary cap like the NHL has in it’s expiring CBA helps level the playing field so that a small-market team like the Nashville Predators can compete with the bigger franchises. However, the bigger markets still have some options that a less financially strong team doesn’t.

Ideally, on-ice success leads to financial success, so a system that provides the smaller markets with a chance to succeed can be of benefit in that regard. In the MLB, for example, you could argue that it is significantly harder for a smaller market to consistently challenge a team like the New York Yankees...

• I think the NHL has enough parity already. Hockey is prone to the most upsets come playoff time as it is. However, it's not about the quality of competition: It's about money. More teams in the playoffs every season=more revenue generated from playoff ticket sales, concessions, merchandise etc. That's what the League will be looking at.
• Using the Yankees is a bad example. They're a global brand that will always be a money-making machine regardless of how good or bad their team is. But the point is taken: smaller market teams like Phoenix, Columbus and even the New York Islanders, need help from higher-revenue teams to grow.

Give a follow on Twitter @TheWrage or Facebook. E-mail me with any questions or comments at  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .