Vista House, Oregon
God's omnipotence. This is a short audio presentation.
I am only allowed 5 MB of audio space per recording and that is roughly 5 minutes and so I have had to work on getting this to fit!
God is not omnipotent because he cannot ride a bicycle, or type a blog article?
I try to avoid 'uhms and ahhs', even though they seem to work for President Obama. Over time I reason I will become a better speaker. I have also increased the volume from my previous two presentations, one of which was on this blog, the other on satire and theology. In the future I hope to have a better audio card and microphone, as I realize they are not first rate.
I agree with Phillips that it is not illogical for God as spirit to ride a physical bike. But he reasons God is therefore not omnipotent as God cannot ride a bike.
In a sense God as spirit could move the bike as if it was being ridden by a person and it could be considered ridden, although strictly speaking he would not be sitting on it and riding it. This first suggestion would not satisfy many critics, but may satisfy some theists in particular.
I can see the point that some may suggest, that it would be illogical for a being of spirit only to do anything physical. But in regard to God I lean away from this view because of my suggestions and because it appears to limit God from logically acting in the physical universe which the infinite, omnipotent God should be able to do and did in Scripture.
I therefore offer the suggestion in agreement with John Frame (I read Frame after I had come to the similar conclusion) that God could remain as spirit in nature only and yet still temporarily take some type of physical form to ride the bike/do a physical action (Phillips suggests bicycle and not Frame). This would not be the same as my other suggestion of Christ riding the bike, which could also be accomplished, as Christ has both the eternal nature of God in spirit and has taken human nature in the incarnation, although the two natures do not mix.
At the same time I can grant Frame the point that God's omnipotence should not be challenged by the physical finite actions that God does not by nature do. He is correct that it is not a weakness. God is in fact beyond physical limitations.
A critic may state that my suggestion is little different than that of the incarnate Christ riding the bicycle. Even though I reason in both scenarios God is riding a bicycle with my suggestion God does not take on a new human nature, rather he simply takes on some type of temporary physicality to perform the action while remaining spirit in nature. We need to remember that the discussion of omnipotence is concerned with God's eternal nature in spirit and not the finite human nature Christ took in the incarnation. That is important in understanding why in the context of this philosophy of religion discussion I make that as my primary suggestion along with the two other scenarios where God could be considered to be riding a bicycle.
Below is the short lecture.
affrt.mp3
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
California
It is barbecue season.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to hear your voice. We Bloggers form these friendship of words on a screen, may see posted pictures, but hearing a voice gives real humanity to our relationships. I heard Joel's voice on Nutuba's blog the other day and now your voice again.
As far as God riding a bicycle, why question isn't can God ride a bicycle, but why ask the question. What purpose could God have for riding a bicycle? If he had such a purpose, he could and would.
We often question God based on our human view, but God's ways aren't our ways. He told us that. he also told us not to test Him (except in the matter of giving). It's a old ploy of those who wish to deny God and be witty about it; to challenge the omnipotence of God with kind of silly tasks, like could God make a rock to heavy for God to lift. As you mentioned in one context, God wouldn't do anything illogical to his will. To ask if He could ride a bicycle one might as well ask if He would ride a unicycle in a circus ring. It is man demanding God perform for Him or he won't accept God. Our problem isn't whether we will,accept God; it's whether he will accept us.
Larry E.
'As far as God riding a bicycle, why question isn't can God ride a bicycle, but why ask the question. What purpose could God have for riding a bicycle? If he had such a purpose, he could and would.'
ReplyDeleteThanks very much, Larry. Your kind words are always good.
Phillips' objections are the type that critics make, and within my PhD I need to deal with many of those objections.
I therefore share my work with my fine Blog readers.:)
'We often question God based on our human view, but God's ways aren't our ways. He told us that. he also told us not to test Him (except in the matter of giving).'
Yes and many of the critics do not trust God and his word.
God bless,
Russ
Pretty cool to actually hear your voice to go with your picture on the blog.
ReplyDeleteTimothy
http://www.skubalon.net
Thanks, Timothy.
ReplyDeleteIt is good to see you back!
Russ:)
Very nice blog! ^^
ReplyDeleteDo you know Seoul, Korea?
If not, feel free to visit my blog.
Have a great day!
Thanks a lot!
Cheers,
ReplyDeleteI hope to visit various places in Asia, including Seoul.
Russ:)
Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteI had to laugh as i thought about God riding a bike, it just struck me kinda funny! I listened to your audio, you have a nice voice for teaching, I heard a guitar being played in the background toward the end?
As i was reading your post i thought of the the scriptures in Lk. 24:36-43. This was after Christ's resurrection and He appeared suddenly in a locked room before the disciples so he didn't enter the door He just appeared and the disciples were scared and thought He was a spirit and they did not recognize Him until they seen his wounds. But He wasn't a spirit because he could be felt and He even ate. Sooo that tells me that He was in some kind of a glorified body state. He could operate as a physical body could but He looked like a Spirit and walked through walls. Do you have any thoughts about this?
Tamela:)
Hey Russ,
ReplyDelete'I had to laugh as i thought about God riding a bike, it just struck me kinda funny! I listened to your audio, you have a nice voice for teaching,...'
Thanks so much, Tamela.;)
'I heard a guitar being played in the background toward the end?'
Yes, it is part of an unofficial Mahavishnu Orchestra concert from Japan in 1973.
'But He wasn't a spirit because he could be felt and He even ate. Sooo that tells me that He was in some kind of a glorified body state. He could operate as a physical body could but He looked like a Spirit and walked through walls. Do you have any thoughts about this?'
I reason Christ has a resurrection body like resurrected believers will have, at least in basic terms. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: 44 mentions a spiritual body, and that is an accurate description of a resurrection body I reason.
This body will be capable of being in the spiritual presence of God apart from matter and capable of living in the restored physical/material universe in the Kingdom.
Russ:)
Very nice landscapes!
ReplyDeleteJimmy
http://www.oxta-computing.com/
Thanks, Jimmy.
ReplyDeleteI hope the business goes well my friend.
Thanks Russ.... I hope too !
ReplyDeleteHaha.... Take care, my-friend :)
"God is not omnipotent because he cannot ride a bicycle, or type a blog article?"
ReplyDeleteHe already rode a donkey and typed a book. Herod wanted God to give a performance too, but seriously, is God just there to entertain us? Why not ask Him to ride a unicycle while juggling 12 dissertations and balancing a column of pencils on his nose?
Matthew 12:39 says:
"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."
There is nothing new under the sun, including the notion that God isn't God unless he performs this or that.
As for no "ad hominem"s on your blog, are you serious? Isn't that like a "pork free" federal budget bill?
'"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing new under the sun, including the notion that God isn't God unless he performs this or that.'
Yes, and these are the issues that critics of Christianity come up with and that is why I must deal with these issues within a secular PhD in order to pass. I share some of my findings with my readers. Be thankful the Lord has guided myself and others (yourself as well) to have good answers.
'As for no "ad hominem"s on your blog, are you serious? Isn't that like a "pork free" federal budget bill?'
I am very serious. Ad hominem against me results in a person's comment being deleted with me replying to content and with the person having no further say. I took a little of it in the beginning, but now I have no toleration for it.
God bless,
Russ
I hope God grants you the wisdom and perseverance to get your dissertation done.
ReplyDeleteDid you get to the places you have pictures of?
'I hope God grants you the wisdom and perseverance to get your dissertation done.'
ReplyDeleteCheers, that is very gracious and much appreciated.
I lost my initial PhD appointment at Manchester over related issues of staying true to the Christian faith, and I reason was given a number of revisions at Wales somewhat because of my views.
'Did you get to the places you have pictures of?'
I have been to Oregon and California, but would like to see more of both. I have been to some eastern states, the UK and parts of Western Europe. Most of the photos are from places I would still like to see.:)
Okay, it is NHL playoff time and once again time for my yearly philosophical rant on the NHL.
ReplyDeleteThis is from previous blog posts.
The NHL is committed to several American southern non-traditional hockey markets in the unlikely hope that hockey will one day be a national sport in the entire US and very popular on national T.V. As a result, Canada must be negated, even though Hamilton would be a very successful franchise. Canadian franchises do not assist in the American dream, and do not generally draw well in the US. This American dream is likely to largely fail, as there is little evidence that major sports leagues can mainly develop in non-traditional markets. Look at the NFL, MLB, EPL, Serie A and others, these leagues basically began in regions where the sport had its early years and is part of culture. It seems unlikely professional hockey will ever be a national sport in the US since it has been there almost as long as in Canada.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Why I gave up on the NHL
This article was originally posted on kingpinned in June.
The 2006 Stanley Cup will likely go to the United States this year, and I think that in general the United States will continue to dominate the championship.
I am not anti-American at all. As a Canadian I am glad the Americans are our neighbours. I use many American products and appreciate many aspects of their culture. I know Americans personally that I like, and have American friends. The United States is currently the greatest (most prominent) country in the world, no question. I study theology and I am very appreciative of the theological contributions the United States has made to the world, among other things.
I have been fed up with the Americanization of the NHL since 1990s. I firmly believe that most of the teams in the NHL should be located in the United States, but not with the current 24-6 ratio. That ratio makes it very difficult for Canada to win the Stanley Cup on a regular basis. Some may say that the last two finals have had Canadian teams in them, but I would reply that being in the finals and winning are not near the same. History is filled with teams that go on a run one year and never win championships in following seasons; in fact most finalists are in that category. Canada has not won the Stanley Cup since 1993, and with a 24-6 ratio it will be fortunate to win the Cup every twenty years.
Many Americans cities in the southern part of the United States are not really hockey towns. Those franchises in those cities are like the Montreal Expos, and Vancouver Grizzlies, basically sports teams that will make it if they contend, but if the teams are average they will not be that popular. Sure, winning the Stanley Cup in Tampa Bay and Carolina brings fan support, but how long will hockey succeed in areas with a non-hockey culture and a mediocre team. Like The Expos and Grizzlies in other sports, those hockey teams should be moved to cities where the sport is popular.
The NHL did nothing to save Quebec and Winnipeg from moving to the States, caused largely by out of control salaries and a weak Canadian dollar. The league did not bring in a salary cap and revenue sharing until years later. As well, many in the Canadian media at the time thought it was for the good that the NHL was focusing on the United States at the expense of Canada. However, now many in the media complain about the non-hockey markets and that Canada has not won a Cup since 1993. When talking about good for the game, whose game are we talking about? Professional hockey in Canada has suffered since the 1990s. Sometimes I just shake my head at Canadian attitudes. I lived in England for two years, I did not hear the British media stating that it was good for football/soccer that top players and teams go to the United States, at the expense of England. If the United States was to succeed in soccer, then it was good for them and the game in a sense, but England would look out for its football/soccer program first and foremost. No one is really looking out for professional hockey in Canada first and foremost. This is stupid and ridiculous.
Without a salary cap and revenue sharing only the clubs in the bigger markets would have succeeded in the future. We have three cities in Canada that with the present salary cap and revenue sharing likely could support an NHL team. Those are Winnipeg, with a new arena which is barely NHL size, Hamilton, and Quebec, that could fix up their old arenas to NHL standards, until new arenas were ready. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman states that Canada may have viable cities without clubs, but has no plans to provide them with teams. In other words, too bad, no. The NHL does not care much about the growth of professional hockey in Canada. It takes Canada for granted.
*Additional note April 2009: Toronto (2) and Kitchener-Waterloo with Hamilton included in market, have also shown interest in an NHL franchise, but so far there is no NHL arena from any of the proposed sites other than the possibly smallish 15, 000 plus arena in Winnipeg.
This is clearly a fault within this country and not primarily the NHL.
Despite the fact Canada produces the majority of NHL players, because of the draft there is no benefit for Canadian franchises. In Europe football/soccer clubs have academies which can develop and then sign young players, but the NHL has taken away any advantage for Canadian teams by producing local players. Obviously with the 24-6 ratio, and the draft, the league is primarily American focused, hoping to make it big financially in the States one day. The American national TV ratings are mediocre despite the fact the hockey is almost as old in the United States as it is in Canada. Clearly hockey is a popular regional game in the northern states, and in southern states, at least temporarily if the team is a contender. The league has basically taken Canada for granted thinking that most Canadians will support at least one team despite the lack of championship success. This lack of success will continue in the future, unless there is a movement by the Canadian clubs and the NHL to stop taking Canada for granted. Not only is the growth of the professional game important in the United States, but also in Canada. Since the professional game has been taken for granted here, they have lost one fan, as over the last few years I have become just a casual observer.
*Additional note April 2009: By having academies instead of a draft this would weed out non-hockey markets other than the largest metropolitan markets in the US, in many cases. This would basically result in the better hockey markets primarily having the better teams. If a region cannot produce a suitable academy, they should not have a franchise.
*Sure the game is growing in non-hockey markets, but so are the sports that are in front of it in popularity! The result in many cases, where the team is not a championship contender, is a struggling franchise.
Additional
A dear relative of mine who read an earlier version of this post stated that I appeared to be anti-American, or bordered on being anti-American, and that Canadian players earned money in the United States. These statements demonstrate a misunderstanding of my writing, which I know can easily happen when one is reading the writing of another person. I shall attempt to make myself more clear concerning this post.
I supported the moves of the Vancouver Grizzlies and Montreal Expos from Canada to the United States, a place where basketball and baseball are popular national sports. I am opposed to the Americanization of the NHL, to the extent that a major emphasis has been made to grow the game in non-hockey markets. I think this philosophy generally will not work, in hockey or any other sport. I would deduce, that a look at most professional sports in the world would show that successful sports teams generally succeed over the long term where the sport has been part of the culture before the professional team existed, or the sports franchise was one of the early members of a new league and a new sport. I am in favour of the NHL providing a team for Hartford for example, which is a legitimate hockey city, but as a Canadian, my main focus in the growth of the game in Canada. If the NHL was experimenting with non-hockey markets in one or two places, I would not like it, but it would not be the same large problem it is for the NHL today, in my view.
As far as Canadians earning money in the USA, I have no problem with the concept. The draft does, however, in my mind, prohibit some of the elite Canadian players from staying in Canada. If the Canadian clubs did have academies in place, the top Canadian players would often likely play close to home, which should be their right as Canadian citizens, although as I said, I have no problem with Canadians working abroad. I am in favour of the free enterprise system, and if a hockey club can succeed in the United States in the long run, so be it, but I think the NHL has blundered by putting teams in several non-hockey markets, overlooking three Canadian cities, and at least one American one as well. This is not only an questionable approach to building the NHL, but is also stifling the growth of the professional game in Canada, and ultimately will greatly limit the number of Stanley Cups won by Canadian clubs.
It is of course necessary for Canadian cities and business people to have the money to purchase teams and renovate and build arenas. Hamilton and Quebec do not presently have updated arenas, but I reason that if the NHL made it clear it wanted to come to those markets that the support and money would come. American cities, that are sometimes non-hockey markets, are often more willing to build the arena first and try to bring in a franchise later. But according to the media, many of these cities are looking for either a NHL or NBA team, and this approach would not work in Canada where basketball is not a national sport. It would therefore be even more risky for a Canadian city to build a new NHL size arena without knowing that the NHL was interested in placing a team there.
This was lovely! I enjoyed it:)
ReplyDeleteShort and sweet, I am glad you like it Leon.
ReplyDeleteWith my sleep apnea and with the large amount of work with MPhil and PhD theses, and some part-time work at times, I have not had the time and energy to teach and lecture much, although the theological blogging can count for teaching experience on my curriculum vitae. These short blog lectures allow me to work on my public speaking.
I am glad you folks do not mind being part of my experiments...;)
And after all, it is free.
Cheers, Leon.
Russ:)
Bringing your voice to your teachings and views makes your blog a much more personal and interesting experience. Thank you Russ.
ReplyDelete-All Ears-
That's quite a BBQ!
ReplyDelete-Hot Doggy-
I try to be an excellent lecturer and pray I will get better.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Yes it is cow huntin' season.
ReplyDeleteCheers!
Hey, check out these clips!
MAR Y SOL Festival (1)
MAR Y SOL Festival (2)
God as spirit has interacted with and affected physical matter numbers of times in Scripture. (First and foremost, when He created everything!) In Exodus 31:18, God wrote with His finger the Ten Commandments onto stone. The burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night are just a few other examples. The (Shekinah glory cloud) presence of God was between the cherubim above the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle. God walked in the garden of Eden, and walked past Moses when Moses hid in a cleft. All of these show that, though God is omnipresent, He can somehow cause Himself, or at least a portion of Himself, to inhabit a specific limited portion of physical space, and can move physical matter. Therefore, I would see no problem with God actually riding a bicycle, if He so wished. But, as others have already mentioned, God is not there for our entertainment, and we cannot make God perform for us at the snap of a finger.
ReplyDeleteIn a World Religion class in college, the professor openly challenged God before the class and said that, if there really was a God, for God to say something for the class to hear, and then he (the professor) would believe in Him. The professor then announced that he would give God a prescribed amount of time to speak, during which everyone was to stay quiet and listen. Afterward, when no 'divine voice' was heard, the professor implied that this was proof that no God existed.
Similar to those who bring up such silly arguments as 'God not being omnipotent because He cannot ride a bicycle,' I don't believe my former professor was honestly looking for proof of God's existence because he wanted to believe in God; I think he, as an enemy of God under God's wrath, and as someone who did not know God, was merely mocking God, and trying to make God look so pathetic, and make it look as if God cannot even perform the simplest of tasks, a task which even a small child could perform. Such audacious attacks against the Creator of the universe, disguised as logical arguments (though based on a biased presumption and a false premise), merely reflect their hatred for God, and their lack of willingness to submit to Yahweh's authority over their life. I suspect that, if their logic is soundly defeated and shown to be incorrect, they would likely simply look for another excuse not to trust in God.
'God walked in the garden of Eden, and walked past Moses when Moses hid in a cleft.'
ReplyDeleteYes, I thought of this while preparing the article.
I suspect that, if their logic is soundly defeated and shown to be incorrect, they would likely simply look for another excuse not to trust in God.
Good point.
Cheers.:)
Russ,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you could get your own radio program and call it "Theologian of the Air" (we used to have a radio broadcast called "The Chapel of the Air" here, with David Mains) or "Dr. Russ" (as opposed to 'Dr. Phil').
Well, so far Jeff I have copyrighted the titles thekingpin68 and satire and theology via their use on my blogs. I do not know if I would use these names in any other context.
ReplyDeleteTheology of air, and hopefully not Theology of error.
Cheers.
LOVE the gun BBQ!!! I WANT ONE!!!
ReplyDeleteAnother one I've heard is, "Can God create a boulder too big for Him to lift?" Either way you answer, they'll say God is not omnipotent.
But that's not the point. God doesn't have to do things that are incompatible with His nature, to prove He's omni-everything. He saved my soul and filled me with His Spirit; that's proof enough for me! :)
'Another one I've heard is, "Can God create a boulder too big for Him to lift?" Either way you answer, they'll say God is not omnipotent.'
ReplyDeleteSince God is spirit, infinite and omnipotent he is beyond physical limitations and could not logically create a boulder too large to lift. This has been dealt with by many theologians. I can agree with your point that either way many critics will challenge God's omnipotence.
Thanks very much, Greg. Happy Weekend.
Groooovy playing by MO at MAR Y SOL! Makes me wish I were a '70s hippy in the crowd...
ReplyDeleteI had some problems with playing the audio post on my mac with QuickTime or Windows Media Player, but got it to work using VLC Player.
Chucky the total non-hippie...
ReplyDeleteCheers, and glad you like my gift bootleg.
great to hear from you! Trust you're well! I'm finishing up my MA in theology this year. I'll be starting my thesis soon.
ReplyDeleteall the best!
Joey
Thanks, Joey.
ReplyDeleteAll the best with the degree and thesis.
Russ:)
Sv: Hehe, yes! This time I got some help. :)
ReplyDeleteRuss,
ReplyDeleteI'm back after a couple of busy weeks with our services. They went great, and I'm happy to get back to reading, interacting with and writing in the "blogosphere". :-)
It's questions like these (among other things) that have kept me away from continuing my academic Theological training--I just don't have the patience to deal with the same arguments or debates that have been around forever. I love philosophy, but when I'm engaged in philosophical debate with "professional" philosophers/theologians, there is no way to "win". In my experience, they have an agenda...not a genuine desire to know.
Of course, in your situation, this is what you are called to in order to complete your work.
But, then again, we all must be ready for this kind of tactic. As Bahnsen reminds us all in his apologetic lectures, we all must be faithful to not only not "answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:4) by acquiescing to his illogical or unjustified presuppositions and assumptions or we will invariably negatively affect our position by being forced to debate on his terms (we will be like him); and yet, we are also called positively to "answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:5) by showing him the baselessness in his position in order to (if the inquisitor is "genuine") prove his foundation of understanding is simply "shifting sand" that will not ultimately support his erroneous belief system.
I have no problem having to deal with questions like this from people who are genuinely interested in knowing who God is; but, as I said, I have no patience for those who come up with these ridiculous objections to God that have no intention whatever of listening to the answer. Do they think they're being profound? ...sheesh!!
Honest inquiry, I can handle; agenda, I can't.
I pray for your successful completion and subsequent employment for the service of God.
GGM
BTW--I just received the Jeff Beck DVD, "Performing this week...live at Ronnie Scotts" and it's absolutely incredible! I'm not a huge Beck fan, but he's still one of the most amazing guitarists I've ever heard/seen. One of his "special guests" was Eric Clapton for two blues numbers. I like E.C okay, but he's simply not in Jeff Beck's league. It actually seemed as if J.B was trying hard not to show E.C up...but it didn't work. :-)
Great DVD--nothing fancy, just incredible music and awe-inspiring guitar work (with the equally amazing, Vinny Calaiuta on drums). Of course, his bassist (Tal Wilkenfeld) is a joy to watch. Hey...I say that because she's a great bassists, not because she's incredible cute (though that doesn't hurt!) :-)
(Sshh...don't tell Mrs. Moogly!)
Thanks Russ,
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense :)
Ashild, your blog continually looks artistically different, congratulations.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
'It's questions like these (among other things) that have kept me away from continuing my academic Theological training--I just don't have the patience to deal with the same arguments or debates that have been around forever. I love philosophy, but when I'm engaged in philosophical debate with "professional" philosophers/theologians, there is no way to "win". In my experience, they have an agenda...not a genuine desire to know.
ReplyDeleteOf course, in your situation, this is what you are called to in order to complete your work.'
In my mind I need to answer them at times because of the degree I am working on and the type of blogs I run.
'Of course, his bassist (Tal Wilkenfeld) is a joy to watch. Hey...I say that because she's a great bassists, not because she's incredible cute (though that doesn't hurt!) :-)
(Sshh...don't tell Mrs. Moogly!)'
Yikes! I will look her up on the web...you live a dangerous life my friend!:)
Thanks, GGM.
Russ:)
Thanks, Tamela.
ReplyDeleteI am glad when I make sense.
Russ:)
******
NHLPA making sense.
HOCKEY: SECOND SOUTHERN ONTARIO FRANCHISE V. SUN BELT FRANCHISES
Players' union, league butt heads over relocation
TIM WHARNSBY
April 28, 2009
HOCKEY REPORTER
The National Hockey League Players' Association is annoyed by the NHL's indifference toward putting a second team in Toronto.
With a handful of Sun Belt teams struggling to sell hockey, NHLPA director of player affairs Glenn Healy believes the timing could not be better for the NHL to seriously look at transferring a second team to the Toronto area.
He also stated that, in addition to Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie and a group that wants to bring a team to Vaughn, Ont., there are at least two other factions interested in landing another NHL team for Southwestern Ontario.
"They have been trying to fit a square peg into a round hole for a lot of years," Healy said yesterday, in reference to the failure of the Sun Belt teams in the NHL. "They have tried everything in the world to sell the game, market the game, put fans in the seats and it doesn't work for a lot of reasons.
"You can go down a laundry list of why it hasn't worked - it doesn't have the corporate backing, management has been ineffective in putting a winning team on the ice, and so on."
Healy's remarks were in concert with the view expressed by his boss, NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly, who along with NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, assembled the Vaughn group.
"The viability of a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario should be explored, so, in the event that relocation needs to be considered for franchises that are struggling where they are currently located, a well-informed decision can be made," Kelly said in a statement.
But NHL commissioner Gary Bettman continued in his stand that the league does not want to relocate any of its franchises and there are no immediate expansion plans.
"I didn't know who he was sitting down with," Bettman said of Daly on his weekly radio show. "I couldn't care less. He had the meeting, he reported back that there was another group interested in a team in Southern Ontario, which doesn't come as a shock or a news bulletin to me."
Even if Bettman changes his tune on the expansion front, Toronto or Southwestern Ontario would not be considered a front-runner.
"If at some point we're in the business of relocating or expanding, we're going to open it up because the number of people and the number of places that want franchises is a fairly lengthy list," he said. "Nobody has the corner on the market."
This has NHLPA executives such as Healy scratching their heads. The Florida Panthers came close to advancing to the playoffs for the first time since the 1999-2000 season. The average ticket price for a Panthers game is about $35 (U.S.) and they have plenty of ticket giveaways at nearby shopping malls and bars.
Yet, they finished 24th in attendance this season. The average ticket price for a Toronto Maple Leafs game is more than $100 (Canadian). That alone, Healy said, is an indication that Toronto or Southwestern Ontario could support another team.
"The players' responsibility is to put the best product on the ice," Healy said. "I think we've done that this year; whistle to whistle it has been excellent. I think the league has the responsibility to put teams in viable markets that you know are going to succeed. If the product is lousy then we have to revamp the game. But that's not the case."
Although Maple Leafs Sport and Entertainment, which owns the Leafs, refuses to comment on the possibility of a second franchise in its backyard until it becomes closer to reality, there is a belief MLSE would rather cash in on a lucrative territorial-rights fee than cut cheques to financially strapped competitors in need of revenue-sharing.
The NHLPA has little influence with the NHL on franchise relocations, and it's unlikely Bettman and the 30 governors would concede a say in the next collective agreement. "We can't do anything, but we do question why franchises are in certain places," Healy said. "We care because they are tied to us with the [salary-cap] system we're in and the cost certainty. Some of these franchises are like an anchor, or even the Titanic, and we're going down with them."
******
NOT SO SUNNY DAYS
The New York Islanders, with their last-place product and outdated arena, finished the 2008-09 regular season 30th with the worst attendance, but there were plenty of Sun Belt clubs with their share of empty seats. Below, some of the NHL's southern teams' average attendance.
Team Avg. Att.
20. Carolina 16,572
21. Tampa Bay 16,497
22. Los Angeles 16,488
24. Florida 15,621
27. Nashville 15,429
28. Phoenix 14,875
29. Atlanta 14,626
I hope the dessertation is now over.
ReplyDeleteGod be with you
Thanks so much. I have the first two sections of my final revisions done. If you are looking for blog links, please let me know.
ReplyDeleteHappy Weekend, Russ:)
Too bad George Carlin wasn't in your class to hear that with his category errors and the like.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Rick T!
ReplyDelete