Shorter Season = Better Season?

[The Swedish Flame]

Here's a story I just stumbled upon. Actually, maybe not that much of a story, more an opinion piece I guess.

Not that this is the kind of thing I think we should be saying too loudly, lest Gary Bettman and his cadre hear, but I've really come to enjoy the fact that this is a 48-game season instead of an 82-gamer. Each loss is that much more agonizing, each win that much more likely to bring a postseason berth. There's something to be said for the cold brutality of the natural selection that emerges over the course of a six-month season as opposed to one that runs three and a half, because it does a lot to ensure that the best teams possible are competing for the Stanley Cup. But seeing all these bad ones white-knuckle it has been fascinating.

The East is a conference with its playoff teams all but decided at this point, though Winnipeg has the slimmest glimmer of hope for unseating Washington atop the abysmal Southeast. Nonetheless, the fact that a team like New Jersey was hanging around at all says a lot about the type of competition they were facing.

It has given teams hope they almost certainly wouldn't have had otherwise, and allowed not-great teams like the Maple Leafs to secure a playoff spot they would almost assuredly have lost were it not for the fact that the calendar saved them from statistical correction running them down and sinking its teeth into their throat like a cheetah on the Serengeti.

The West, as you might expect given the generally higher quality of the teams involved therein, is far more interesting, insofar as the Blue Jackets, the team that spent most of the week in eighth place, has also spent pretty much that entire time with less of a chance of sneaking in than the Red Wings lurking directly behind them.

This, too, is somewhat a function of the shortened schedule: Games in hand simply mean far more than they do in an 82-game schedule, and holding on with slipping, whitening fingertips to that final playoff spot for a week has meant all the more given the number of games currently being packed into your average seven-day period this time around as opposed to the norm.

So what do you guys think? Was it more fun with a shorter season? More exciting?

Or is the fact that what normally would be fairly mediocre (if not awful) teams had a shot at making the playoffs a travesty?

[Joker]

Yes, more entertaining for sure. I wonder how 60 would look, considering 48 is TOO short IMO.

[Badgers Nose]

I like the game density. Not sure I would want a shorter season, but a condensed one would be great.

[Cheerio]

58 game season, every team plays every other team twice (home & home). Straight W-L record with continuous OT but no loser points. Top 8 teams in the NHL make the playoffs. Top seeds choose who they play in playoffs.

[Table 5]

Totally, if it were up to me, we would shorten the 82-game schedule by about 15-20 games. This way we'd have a shorter regular season where games would mean more, and the playoffs could be done by a reasonable time.

[Erick Estrada]

I don't like it. The Flames season was over after their first 10 games when they came out of the gates slow as the short season leaves very little margin for error. There are too many loser points given out for a 48 game season and you need 82 games to truly separate the contenders from the pretenders. Also the short season doesn't leave enough separation from 8th place to last in conferences making it too easy for teams just out of the playoff race to completely tank for a top 5 pick. Look what the Hurricanes and Predators did after the deadline. There are way too many 1,2,3 win teams this year down the stretch and it looks bad.

[moon]

Didn't like it at all. I would say maybe a 72 game season at the least but think the regular schedule is working just fine and don't see much of a need to change it.

[CaptainCrunch]

I could live with a 48 game schedule.

I usually burn out half way through the season.

[Huntingwhale]

The game density was good. It was nice to watch the team play 3 times a week minimum. But waiting until January sucked balls. I'm fine with 82 games. Because as soon as summer rolls around, I start fiending out and the wait becomes unbearable.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Would people seeing 3/4 the number of games be interested in paying 33 percent more per game? Doubtful.

I like a longer season. This team went through a lot of changes and the normal quarter season to adjust was half of the short season, and they were out of it. Too much relies on a quick start.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

58 game season, every team plays every other team twice (home & home). Straight W-L record with continuous OT but no loser points. Top 8 teams in the NHL make the playoffs. Top seeds choose who they play in playoffs.

This, but maybe add a few more division and conference games to get in around 66 - 72 games.
Leave OT as is, no shoot outs.
3 points / win
1 for tie
0 for loss.

Still 16 teams in playoffs, but only top 14 are guaranteed. Have 8th and 9th place teams from each conference doing a best of 3 to see who takes the 8th and final place.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by moon

Didn't like it at all. I would say maybe a 72 game season at the least but think the regular schedule is working just fine and don't see much of a need to change it.

I agree 72 games would ideal. Ensure the season ends in March and the Playoffs are done by May.

[Coach]

I think this season has been much more exciting than the last few. The added value to reg season games helps. I'd like to see them shorten the regular season.

[$ven27]

At least 70 games would be fine by me.

[Sakari]

72 games. No less.

[Dion]

I'm not a fan of hockey that's played well into June. A shorter season would allow the playoffs to start earlier with the Cup final being decided mid May. A 72 game schedule would accomplish that.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

The more hockey the better for me. I'd be okay with an even longer season. I just like watching hockey.

[SofaProfessor]

Nope. That means more time I have to spend watching another sport like basketball or Major League Snake Charming (huge in Egypt, not my thing).

[Itse]

I've long been of the opinion that the NHL regular season is too long. In my opinion the quality and the entertainment value of the games suffer for it. Cut down to about 70 games and you could pretty much eliminate back-to-backs for example. That in itself would be a good thing.

[t0rrent98]

I have a hard time believing the leafs or the sens would make the playoffs if it were a full 82 game season. Heck, even the isles have made the playoffs.