I'd much rather see a 60-65 game season but that'll probably never happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strombad
That would be a dream, a fantastic dream.
Honest question, why would shortening the season please you? Aside from a break every 4 years for the Olympics, I hate not having Flames game to watch if there is a 5 or 6 day break between games. A 65 game season works out to an average of 2 games one week, and 3 the next. So given road trips, etc. there would be a handful of times with at least a week without Flames hockey, and many instances of >4 days without it. No thanks.
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
Honest question, why would shortening the season please you? Aside from a break every 4 years for the Olympics, I hate not having Flames game to watch if there is a 5 or 6 day break between games. A 65 game season works out to an average of 2 games one week, and 3 the next. So given road trips, etc. there would be a handful of times with at least a week without Flames hockey, and many instances of >4 days without it. No thanks.
In my scenario the length of the season wouldn't be the same that it currently is with hockey ending in April, then playoffs done in June. I'd rather have a densely packed schedule end in early March and playoffs done the end of April or early May. Of course that would also push back the draft and things like that. I find there's too many pointless games, last year with the shortened schedule it was much better hockey.
There's barely enough talent out there to field 16 competetive teams. I don't care if there are 10 more cities that could support teams, there just is no way to keep them competetive, and with the salary cap that means you're paying high salaries to players who have little to no business being in the league.
There's barely enough talent out there to field 16 competetive teams. I don't care if there are 10 more cities that could support teams, there just is no way to keep them competetive, and with the salary cap that means you're paying high salaries to players who have little to no business being in the league.
Who decides what players have little-to-no business being in the league?
Calgary has 7 players who either couldn't make their original squad or had never played significant time in the NHL before, along with a team almost completely devoid of talent you would have labeled "first line/first pairing", with a heavy load of 3rd and 4th liners, and they've been very competitive and entertaining.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to strombad For This Useful Post:
No to shortening the season. 82 games + playoffs is perfect. Those same people who want to shorten the season are probably the same guys who fiend out for hockey once summer rolls around. Waiting for hockey during the off-season is the worst feeling in the world, and people want to make it more unbearable? God Jesus, no!
The Following User Says Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
No to shortening the season. 82 games + playoffs is perfect. Those same people who want to shorten the season are probably the same guys who fiend out for hockey once summer rolls around. Waiting for hockey during the off-season is the worst feeling in the world, and people want to make it more unbearable? God Jesus, no!
I'm all for shortening the season to 50-65 games a season, but since that's a fantasy that will never happen, I'd like to go full footie and see the following:
- 50 game NHL season
- Stanley Cup tournament (top 16 is still fine)
- World Cup (Every 2 years, international teams)
- League Tournament (Every 2 years, Single Knockout, Group Stage qualification followed by top 16 knockout round, NHL/KHL/Elitserien/etc)
- Champions Tournament (Round Robin followed by knockout round, Winner of Stanley Cup/Le Mat/Gagarin/etc)
Essentially the same amount of hockey as we have now, but with an extreme jump in the number of important games. Again, I'm fully aware of the chance of it happening is zero, but it would still be an ideal solution to decreasing the stretches of meaningless hockey while keeping the overall amount of hockey roughly the same.
The Following User Says Thank You to strombad For This Useful Post:
The NHL hasn't played as few as 65 games in a season since the 1940s.
Also, I would find it hard to consider a tournament between the Stanley Cup champion and random European leagues to be meaningful. Fjarstead just got its ass handed to it by the AHL All-Stars, and couldn't even beat the Toronto Marlies. There probably isn't a team in Europe that could handle a properly motivated NHL champion. Though, of course, I doubt anyone would be properly motivated.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
I'm all for shortening the season to 50-65 games a season, but since that's a fantasy that will never happen, I'd like to go full footie and see the following:
- 50 game NHL season
- Stanley Cup tournament (top 16 is still fine)
- World Cup (Every 2 years, international teams)
- League Tournament (Every 2 years, Single Knockout, Group Stage qualification followed by top 16 knockout round, NHL/KHL/Elitserien/etc)
- Champions Tournament (Round Robin followed by knockout round, Winner of Stanley Cup/Le Mat/Gagarin/etc)
Essentially the same amount of hockey as we have now, but with an extreme jump in the number of important games. Again, I'm fully aware of the chance of it happening is zero, but it would still be an ideal solution to decreasing the stretches of meaningless hockey while keeping the overall amount of hockey roughly the same.
The only good part about a shorter season is that it keeps the top teams rested enough to curb stomp the rest of the league come playoff time. It wasn't an accident that the Conference finals featured the last four champions; they didn't have time to get beat up during a longer regular season.
Now you might argue that's better for the game and the fans as a whole, and I'd probably agree with you. I still want to watch a playoff series knowing my team has a puncher's chance going up against Chicago or LA etc. Without that Cinderella factor, it's just the NBA.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
I wonder what ticket prices would need to be with a 65 game schedule in order to please the NHLPA, because you know that they would not allow a significant revenue drop. It would probably alter both the demographics that are able to attend the games and the volume of spectators in a lot (if not most) cities.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I'm probably wrong but wouldn't supply and demand dictate that with a shorter season you could charge more per game essentially evening out the revenue?
And you don't shorten the season to prevent playing hockey in June (which would be nice) you shorten the season to make each game more meaningful and thus more fun to watch. I'm sorry, even in a "hockey market" nobody is excited to see the Coyotes come to town 3 times a year.
32 teams, 8 team divisions
2 home/away within your division = 28 games
1 home/away for the rest = 48 games
76 games and you keep the playoffs as they are.
If you want to talk about a meaningless regular season look at what the "everybody but Edmonton" makes the playoffs scheme in the CFL has done. Yawn!
I think 65-70 games would be ideal. There's no need for the season to be as long as it is, especially in a league where more than 50 percent of the teams make the playoffs. If they cut the number of teams making the postseason the games would at least become more meaningful.
I would be especially curious to know if you think the talent situation is better or worse than it was in the 1980s.
Haha, it's just my opinion, and I was but a pup in the 80's.
Every expansion team immediately creates a 50-70 million dollar hole that needs to be filled from players who currently can't make an NHL roster. I don't really have a problem with lots of teams, I just want to see elite hockey, and I think everyone wants to see that from their respective team, and it's just not going to happen.
It's probably just sour grapes from me cause I'm tired of seeing scrubs making multiple millions to play a game.
32 teams = 2 x 16-team conferences = 4 x 8-team divisions
Home and home against other conference = 32 games
Home and home against other division in own conference = 16 games
2 home and 2 away against own division: 28 games
Total = 76
So you'd need to have a rotating "extra game against in-conference opponent" like they worked into the current schedule. That's the odd wrinkle that would need to be worked out.
And this is the same city that chose this as the mascot for a team called the Mariners:
Never seen a seafaring moose before?
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
