Considering the criticism aimed at the IPL. Some justified some not, how about we look at the bright side of something that is inevitable. I can certainly see some of the good things that will come out of IPL (not ICL).

- Cricketers will get paid as much as other international sportstars (almost):
Even though many think and say that cricketers are well paid it is not really true. Just cos they are paid more than before doesn't mean they are getting what they deserve. I think most complaints are coming from ex-cricketers who feel they missed out and a section of fans (especially in ENG :-)) who regularly complain about how much people earn (footballers, MPs, bankers etc.) for reason I cannot understand. The fact is compared to other sports persons cricketers are paid ridiculous low amounts. Why should Tendulkar not earn as much as Woods or Federer ?

- A cricketers earnings will not depend on his nationality (almost):
Why should Brendan Mcllum the Best ODI & 20/20 wk at the moment get paid so much less than a mediocre English or Indian cricketer ? Why should so many hugely talented Australians (White, Hussey etc.) who cannot get into the national side not get paid more than some far less talented international cricketers ? And why should the greatest bowler in history have to play county cricket cos SL don't pay him enough ?
While some people question the sense of paying more for Ishant sharma than Ponting (justifiably) we could equally question why Beckham who was never the worlds best footballer paid more than all others. It's also about brand value. Ishant may still fizzle out and devalue drastically next year.

- More professionalism less ICC, ECB and BCCI:
The fact is inescapable that all businesses are here to make money. Looking at the way English premiership teams are managed compared to ECB and BCCI there is really no comparison. Already the franchises have got the best coaches and support staff.

- More attraction in WI and NZ(maybe):
If youngsters see what they can earn in cricket maybe they will be more attracted to cricket than Basketball or Rugby. More so in WI cos they don't really have any nationalism attached to Basketball.

-More development in other countries(maybe):
No reason why some of these franchises open their own academies and nurture talent in countries with poor infrastructure or even in non-test playing countries.

-Old traditions will finally give way to common sense (hopefully):
Umpires making mistakes will translate to business losses. There will be more use of technology and referrals and less worshipping of outdated 19th century 'traditions'. I am in the minority here but that's what I think.

-Less players giving up country for county:
We have seen SA, NZ and WI cricketers move to Eng cos they were not paid enough. Now they have 1 more option. And they don't have to give up country hopes cos IPL is so much shorter.

I think you are right. Everyone has just seen been seeing the bad sides of ipl and not the good ones. It would surely make the game more professional and attractive for the youngsters. But i still think it will kill cricket as we know it.

__________________
"They look like a team destined to win the world cup"......
Ian Chappel during Ind v SA in the World Cup 20-20

It will not kill cricket as we know it. Mainly becos we 'know' cricket in different ways. For many cricket was killed when International cricket was given importance over county cricket. Still other think it died when ODIs started etc. etc.

The two biggest and obvious advantages I haven’t mentioned are
-Great Individual confrontations:
Especially wrt Australians. Can Lee blast away Gilchrist ? Will Warne try to intimidate Symonds ? How will Tendulkar and Warne fare in 20/20. What about Dravid. Is he worth any money at all let alone the highest paid in his franchise.
-A bit less flag waving and fewer opinions biased by nationality:
What will happen when Lee bowls a beamer to Symonds or Hayden or Sreesanth thinks Harbhajan called him a monkey ? Fans, ‘experts’ and media will see things for what they really are and take sides without being blinded by nationalism.

I don't agree he is right - I do agree with your understanding of what will happen though.

__________________
Ern

I've read your list and I can't see a single thing in it which makes me think the IPL is a good idea. The reference to the Premier League in football is the one that kills the idea dead for me. The whole idea is awful.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Thanks for reading the whole thing :-)

Better grounds/infrastructure in India:
Having talked to an Indian fan here at work he reckons that Indian grounds should only be visited if you are male and between 15 and 50. The facilities are not upto scratch to put it mildly. With full crowds expected for the IPL the franchises have no option if but to improve the facilities if they want middle class crowds to come in and pay higher ticket prices.


Interesting article from John Stern below:
"There was a conversation recently on BBC radio during one of England's Tests in New Zealand, between Christopher Martin-Jenkins and Geoff Boycott. It was one of those joyful little asides that the Test Match Special commentary team still specialise in.
Boycott was passing comment on the signing of New Zealand's Ross Taylor by the Bangalore franchise in the IPL. Boycott waxed about what a great signing this was, how Bangalore needed a biffer like Taylor to complement the grafters like Rahul Dravid. At some point during his exposition, Boycott turned to CMJ for affirmation. CMJ's response was indifferent at best. His lack of interest in the IPL was obvious. Boycott might as well have been talking about American football for all the likelihood that his co-commentator was going to engage him in conversation about it.
CMJ's reaction, I would suggest, is pretty typical of English cricket followers, and certainly of the more mature spectator. I would imagine that British Asian cricket punters are more engaged with the revolution, but for the majority of England supporters the IPL is just another acronym that might as well be something to do with the global banking crisis as with cricket.
This might have something to do with the absence of any significant England players (Dimitri Mascarenhas notwithstanding) in the IPL. But it also has a whole lot to do with English cricket's innate conservatism, the sort of kneejerk reaction that Brits have taken centuries to cultivate and for which we are rightly renowned across the globe.
There are two strands to this conservatism. Firstly there is the Fred Trueman-style "what's going off out there?" bewilderment at cricket's modernisation, which extends to fear for the future of Test cricket, and indeed, all forms of "proper" cricket (that is, games played over at least three days in white clothes). I have some sympathy with the Test cricket element of that fear, and indeed that was my first reaction when the full extent of the IPL became apparent: that the Test game would soon be eroded into nothing more than couple of "boutique" or "heritage" series involving Australia, England and India.
The second strand of this conservatism is less rational and more xenophobic. The idea of money running cricket is unpalatable enough but Indian money? Good grief, pour another G&T. This may seem like an extreme view and, for sure, it's not representative of the majority. But in the mainstream British news media, cricket has a frustratingly dysfunctional and outdated image. Whereas football, and all who sail in her, are worshipped with increasingly absurd reverence, cricket is either seen as a bit of a joke (default position is that the England team is rubbish regardless of whether they're actually winning any matches) or as a some sort of emblem of rural England.
I have done a number of TV and radio interviews about the IPL and at no point in any of them was there any real discussion about whether the IPL might possibly be good for cricket or at least whether it might be popular. It was the same old discussions about limited-overs cricket ruining the game with an unhealthy dose of "Crikey, where do these Indian chaps get their money from?" thrown in.
Now, before I start turning intellectual somersaults, I should say that I still have grave doubts about the IPL's benefits for anyone other than for the cash-rich players involved. But only time will tell. It occurred to me, after a conversation with Cricinfo's editor, Sambit Bal, that maybe this was what it was like in the 1950s when your kids started eroding the entire moral value system by listening to Elvis. Not only did the world not end, a whole new art form was born.
Maybe the IPL, and Twenty20 in general, is cricket's rock 'n' roll moment. Maybe it's time for people like me to get with the programme. And just as it's possible to like both Elvis and Mozart, maybe the 20-over game and the 450-over game can co-exist perfectly happily. Let's hope so.
John Stern is editor of The Wisden Cricketer"

The BCCI have requested that the IPL be granted a window so that no international cricket is played whilst it is going on. For what is actually a domestic competition this is, to put it mildly, extremely arrogant. The ECB have never asked anyone else not to play international cricket when we play our County game. All that is happening in India is that the BCCI are saying "look at how much money we can scrape together for this". Despite having a summer season longer than ours they chose to stage this event so that it overlaps with the English County Season cocking a snook at the ECB.

All this for a concept that the Indians were so slow to take up. It's a real shame that someone else couldn't have patented the concept, then the indians could have spent huge amounts of their money just to borrow the concept!

Please do tell us how this is truly good for the world game.

That is taking the ****.

The organisers can take a running jump off a cliff as far as i am concerned.

And they wonder why very few in England are bothered about it?