UPDATE: NHLPA votes for further negotiations on 24-team return to play format

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Toonage

I don't get the idea that the NHL will cancel next season. Sure, if this season is cancelled then we might have that to discuss. But the fact that they appear to be moving heaven and earth to try and fit this season in says otherwise to me. Why would they go through all of this trouble, work out plan that is safe for players and staff, bring all these players back to North America from around the world, work out a system to broadcast the games etc just to throw all of that infrastructure away next season?

Well we went through hell to get this season in and we have a method to play and compete and broadcast it all, but screw next season? Doesn't make sense.

NHL is a gate driven league. Sure, I get that. But you know whats better than nothing? Something. They still have broadcast contracts to fulfill and livelihoods to support. There might be a change to player contracts, there might be a change to how many people can enter an arena. There might not be as much money to be made but there will still be money to be made. To just throw that away after working so hard to save this season would make no sense to me.

Also I'm glad no one told my wife she could have had someone with wealth, power and good looks. I dodged that bullet.

Well, it makes sense because nothing is better then something when it’s a negative cash flow. The only way it would work is if the NHL teams can make money. How much money are television contracts worth without gate receipts and season ticket holder money?Lets say they 5-10 million a team on tv money? Is that enough to pay players?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by troutman

1. No home ice advantage - that is normally your reward for a good regular season. Higher seeded teams will not get to enjoy this benefit. Lower seeded teams don't have to face the adversity of a hostile building.

2. Long break - Beat-up teams have had a chance to heal. You could say that this is the same for all teams, but it penalizes the teams with depth that were built for a long distance run.

3. No fans in the building? Now it's a reality show, not the Stanley Cup playoffs. The electric atmosphere in the buildings is what makes the playoffs extra special.

4. Teams are rusty - there could be a fluke champion.

5. Match-ups may not be fair if all teams did not play equally balanced schedules.

6. Extra teams in the playoffs that don't deserve a spot.

7. Distracted players that may not want to be playing right now.

8. The ice could be terrible in July and August.


I'm not saying don't play hockey. Just don't award the Stanley Cup for this. Maybe give out the President's Trophy for the winner instead.

What happens when 1-2 players test positive?

To have the players come back and play a gruelling 24 team playoff after 65+ regular season games, deal with quarantine etc, and then not not award the Stanley Cup would be unjust IMO and extremely unlikely to happen. Traditionalists will have to embrace change at least for this season, or else asterisk it all you want in your own mind.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

A trio of random thoughts based on a few themes coming up in the thread here.

(1) I feel like the playoffs are going to happen for a few reasons. One is that there's a lot of money to be made and it's all games where players wouldn't get paid anyway. That's one motivator. The other is, if they can't figure out how to put this all together and play some games while the virus is waning in the summer, how are they going to have any season at all next year when there's expected to be a cases spike in the fall/winter?

(2) If they do go straight to the playoffs and it's an expanded format, there's been some talk about the top teams getting a bye. I just wonder if that's what the top teams would even want. The last thing I'd want if I was a first place team like Vegas is having to play a Calgary team that just finished a two or three game series against Anaheim and has probably shaken off the cobwebs. On the other hand, if I'm a team like Calgary, the last thing I want is to play a short series against a team like Anaheim simply because of the rust and losing two out of three games ends your season. I think the NHL will have regular season games. My guess is eight teams per hub means teams will play six games at most and they try to get everyone to 74.

(3) I wonder if even if they complete the regular season they still do expanded playoffs so more teams have something to play for. A 24-team playoff would mean the only teams which would be coming back to meaningless games are Ottawa, Detroit, LA and San Jose.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by troutman

1. No home ice advantage - that is normally your reward for a good regular season. Higher seeded teams will not get to enjoy this benefit. Lower seeded teams don't have to face the adversity of a hostile building.

2. Long break - Beat-up teams have had a chance to heal. You could say that this is the same for all teams, but it penalizes the teams with depth that were built for a long distance run.

3. No fans in the building? Now it's a reality show, not the Stanley Cup playoffs. The electric atmosphere in the buildings is what makes the playoffs extra special.

4. Teams are rusty - there could be a fluke champion.

5. Match-ups may not be fair if all teams did not play equally balanced schedules.

6. Extra teams in the playoffs that don't deserve a spot.

7. Distracted players that may not want to be playing right now.

8. The ice could be terrible in July and August.


I'm not saying don't play hockey. Just don't award the Stanley Cup for this. Maybe give out the President's Trophy for the winner instead.

What happens when 1-2 players test positive?

Hockey fans romanticize the Stanley cup way too much.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Hockey fans romanticize the Stanley cup way too much.

Then you should be fine with handing out the President’s Trophy instead.

The Cup IS mythical.

[chummer]

The players won't make all those sacrifices to play for the President's Trophy.

Stanley Cup or bust.

[FurnaceFace]

If I were a player, I feel like as long as for this year playoff money is shared somehow and helps offset any losses/escrow I'd likely be up for it. It sounds like there is a direct hit to the TV deals if we don't play therefore I think I would care.

Maybe if my team isn't in the playoffs/crappy and I'm at the tail end of my career/on my last contract that would be an impact. If I'm say Dustin Brown I could be less inclined as I've made good money for many years and the escrow hit may not be a big deal to my future.

If I'm a younger player I would want to play as I haven't built up my nest egg as much. If I'm Kylington I want to get back at it to minimize escrow. I have no idea if my career is 2 more years or 10, I do everything to maximize. Similarly if I'm Gaudreau I want to get back at it too as I have a future big contract riding on my ability to rewrite/write my playoff capabilities. Plus most of these guys got to the top level because they are ultra competitive.

As a fan, feeling this is tainted or maybe cheapened is in some way is fair. It's going to be different, and hopefully a one-off experience (for all sports). I think it could be very exciting...but then I've been watching F1 esport races as a bit of a sports fix. To me enough of the season has been completed and if the playoffs are largely the same as always I'm feeling pretty comfortable a title is legit. Conversely, an F1 season with only about half the races completed would have an asterisk to me. It won't affect my viewership though, I'll be watching every race. I suspect the NHL sees the pent up desire for sport and wants to try and be in there as early as possible. There could be a larger audience than normal because any sport is better than reruns and more Netflix.

[Titan]

On the assumption that any of this can happen at all...

All teams going to the playoffs need to have the same number of preparation games.

What about cutting off the existing season at 68 games. Then the top 24 or 20 or however many teams all play 4 games. The results of these 4 games are then added to the results after the 68 games and then the top 16 teams make a traditional playoff pool.

This gives all teams that are on the bubble a chance to play in and all teams get the same number of prep games.

The one flaw I see is how do they determine who plays each other? Perhaps you split the standings in half and each team plays 2 games against the top teams and 2 teams from the bottom group. This eliminates the Detroits and San Jose type teams from having to come back. Gives everyone the same number of preparation games and sets up for a "traditional" playoff. Perhaps the first round is five games to reduce the overall time required?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blender

If I had any clue how to upload a meme this post would be the one of grandpa Simpson entering and then exiting the Bordello when Bart is working the door...

Look, there has been a lot of ignorance in this thread generally, but this brazen ignorance of basic vBulletin functions is where I have to draw the line. How dare you come in here and demonstrate your wilful, casual internet forum formatting illiteracy. I am deeply offended.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

1. No home ice advantage - that is normally your reward for a good regular season. Higher seeded teams will not get to enjoy this benefit. Lower seeded teams don't have to face the adversity of a hostile building.

2. Long break - Beat-up teams have had a chance to heal. You could say that this is the same for all teams, but it penalizes the teams with depth that were built for a long distance run.

3. No fans in the building? Now it's a reality show, not the Stanley Cup playoffs. The electric atmosphere in the buildings is what makes the playoffs extra special.

4. Teams are rusty - there could be a fluke champion.

5. Match-ups may not be fair if all teams did not play equally balanced schedules.

6. Extra teams in the playoffs that don't deserve a spot.

7. Distracted players that may not want to be playing right now.

8. The ice could be terrible in July and August.

All of these things are true, and I still want hockey, because hockey with the risk that these problems materialize is still hockey.
[quote]I'm not saying don't play hockey. Just don't award the Stanley Cup for this. Maybe give out the President's Trophy for the winner instead.
In addition to completely disagreeing with you (I will be placing no asterisk next to any team that wins a cup under these circumstances), you're living in a fantasy land. The NHL is not going to bring back hockey and hold a playoff tournament in order to recoup whatever revenues it can while simultaneously withholding the Stanley Cup from the winner. That's tantamount to telling your audience, "watch our product for two months, but just understand that the outcome doesn't really matter".

What happens when 1-2 players test positive?

They probably don't play for the next week or so until they're recovered. What happened when a bunch of people got mumps? This isn't some sort of death sentence.

[Flamenspiel]

I agree with a lot of Troutman’s points but there certainly is a home ice advantage to teams that will host “neutral” site games. I was just reading that the EPL teams have objected to the neutral plan for that very reason. There are many aspects to home ice that go beyond the home crowd.

I am sure that there are NHL teams objecting as well because they seemed to have come off that plan for now. I doubt the Bruins would sign-off on a 7 game series entirely in Toronto.

[ricardodw]

The NHL goes ahead and plays these games, obviously up against Basket Ball and Golf and MLB, Nascar, and Soccer and nobody cares enough to watch.

What bargaining position would it give the NHL with their planned huge next American TV contract?

Right now there is a diminishing TV pile of ad money with Amazon, Facebook, twitter sucking away any advertising budgets left after the recession.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

The NHL goes ahead and plays these games, obviously up against Basket Ball and Golf and MLB, Nascar, and Soccer and nobody cares enough to watch.

What bargaining position would it give the NHL with their planned huge next American TV contract?

Right now there is a diminishing TV pile of ad money with Amazon, Facebook, twitter sucking away any advertising budgets left after the recession.

I wouldn’t expect very robust TV ratings in the US but this is about making lemonade from lemons. I don’t think sitting out the summer if every other major sport has programming will improve the situation. And then you have a whole bunch to $’s to credit back to your Canadian TV broadcaster.

[Dragomir]

Whoever wins will always have an asterisk next to their victory, even if the Flames win I would feel the same way. Just cancel the season and focus on 20-21 with no fans in attendance.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Dragomir

Whoever wins will always have an asterisk next to their victory, even if the Flames win I would feel the same way. Just cancel the season and focus on 20-21 with no fans in attendance.

It's not that easy to say when 70 games have been played.

[Strange Brew]

I don’t get the asterisk talk if you play a 70 game regular season and then emerge from a 24 team playoff.

Hell with the absence of travel and players and teams rested and healed up, I’d say we could be primed for some incredible hockey. No fans is a huge downer but you play the cards you’re dealt.

Cancelling the season does nothing to improve next year, or bring it any closer.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Dragomir

Whoever wins will always have an asterisk next to their victory, even if the Flames win I would feel the same way. Just cancel the season and focus on 20-21 with no fans in attendance.

You can asterisk the next season and the one after for that matter too as the Covid effect on hockey will last for years to come. Playing a full season with no fan attendance is not an option financially. The anticipation is that by Dec/ Jan fans will be aloud entrance in some form (50% capacity??) so that is why the projection for NEXT season is a January start date. And this current season can linger on untill the end of September if need be which would still give 60+ days off till the beginning of NEXT training camp.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I wouldn’t expect very robust TV ratings in the US but this is about making lemonade from lemons. I don’t think sitting out the summer if every other major sport has programming will improve the situation. And then you have a whole bunch to $’s to credit back to your Canadian TV broadcaster.

Do you expect big TV ratings in Canada..? No Red Mile No White Out No burning trash cans on Whyte Ave. You like the Chances of the BIG Canadian TV markets of Toronto and Vancouver catching Canada's attention?

Whatever $$ the NHL is sending back to Canadian TV they will still be sending back a lot after a fanless tournament.

Going forward the Canadian teams are not going to contribute their fair share to the league with a 70 cent dollar. With a big USD tv contract spread around the league then the Flames and Oilers and Jets and Senators might be viable in a Green Bay Packer sort of way.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Do you expect big TV ratings in Canada..? No Red Mile No White Out No burning trash cans on Whyte Ave. You like the Chances of the BIG Canadian TV markets of Toronto and Vancouver catching Canada's attention?

Whatever $$ the NHL is sending back to Canadian TV they will still be sending back a lot after a fanless tournament.

Going forward the Canadian teams are not going to contribute their fair share to the league with a 70 cent dollar. With a big USD tv contract spread around the league then the Flames and Oilers and Jets and Senators might be viable in a Green Bay Packer sort of way.

So what’s your suggestion for getting a big US television deal with the current circumstances? And what’s your plan for replacing the lost money from the current TV deal if they don’t finish out the year?

I don’t know what TV ratings in Canada will be but I suspect Rogers is eager for the programming.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So what’s your suggestion for getting a big US television deal with the current circumstances? And what’s your plan for replacing the lost money from the current TV deal if they don’t finish out the year?

I don’t know what TV ratings in Canada will be but I suspect Rogers is eager for the programming.

You don't get a big TV deal by offering up a cut rate product to fill in air time for a few bucks.

The chance of an artistic failure , of making hockey appear to be a 2nd or third tier sport, is way too high compared the reward of covering a small portion of what Rogers has paid for.