Would a Shorter Regular Season Create More Interest in the NHL? - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

HOWITZER · 04-10-2015, 08:08 PM

Before the pitchforks come out, hear me out.

Currently the NHL regular season is 82 games, and has historically been in the 70-82 game range in the past 50 years. One of the immediate thoughts that came out of last night's game (and over the past month) is how much interest is generated when every game is seemingly do or die. Over the course of an 82 game schedule however, there is a significant lull in the season, and interest tends to be low between November and January.

Keeping with the October to April format, would a shorter regular season be more beneficial to keep up interest, and in theory, keep more teams in it longer? Rather than have a game every other night, would a move closer towards football-style week schedules get more people amped for games (especially vs the typical Tuesday night game against Arizona)?

With less games devoted towards the regular season, could the league not coordinate tournaments such as the "World Cup of Hockey" to occur during the season, rather than tacked on during the offseason, further taxing exhausted players who go deep in playoff runs? Or could the league entertain other "club tournaments" where there's a cup championship for all the Canadian teams for example? So, the Canadian teams could be split off into pools and play for a separate trophy, guaranteeing some degree of interest in "playoff-like" elimination games throughout the low points of the season. A tournament in season that sees all Canadian teams play each other for "who's the best" could generate more interest than the once-in-a-decade all-canadian playoff match-up.

In effect, with the above suggestions, the NHL could still have teams play 82 games, but some would not be directly influencing chances at the playoffs.

Discuss.

HelloHockeyFans · 04-10-2015, 08:12 PM

Is there data that backs up your claim about lulls in interest between November and January?

Honest question.

Personally, I want more hockey, not less.

Darkwater · 04-10-2015, 08:14 PM

The season is just fine the way it is.

ForeverFlameFan · 04-10-2015, 08:14 PM

82 games is fine.

Northendzone · 04-10-2015, 08:20 PM

I would like to see a schedule of 70 games. Players would be more rested, presumably there would be less injuries.

My schedule also includes a salary and associated ticket cost reduction.

badger89 · 04-10-2015, 08:23 PM

70 games is plenty. But it'll never happen as they'll never cut back revenue at all.

the2bears · 04-10-2015, 08:25 PM

Wouldn't you be worried about injuries during non-league games? I am also interested in something backing up the "lull" claim.

Zarley · 04-10-2015, 08:30 PM

I'd like to see the season shortened to 72 games or so and have the playoffs start in late March with the cup awarded by the end of May. It's tough to maintain interest in the playoffs when they push into June.

JohnnySkittles · 04-10-2015, 08:32 PM

70~games would be ideal.

FireGilbert · 04-10-2015, 08:50 PM

I agree with shortening the season by 5 to 10 games but only if it is replaced by more international hockey. This would include the World Cup and/or Olympics every 4 years with the other years used for international friendlies and World Cup qualifying.

FBI · 04-10-2015, 08:57 PM

I kinda like it the way it is..

HOWITZER · 04-10-2015, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

Is there data that backs up your claim about lulls in interest between November and January?

Honest question.

Personally, I want more hockey, not less.

You caught me, I am making a critical uncited assumption. This was just anecdotally taken from a water cooler conversation between a few friends. What I would suggest, and what I will try and find are attendance figures graphically represented across all teams in one season. The one caveat of this of course is teams will inflate true attendance to keep sell-out figures. Another alternative is to track TV ratings for all games and see if there is a explicit lull point.

Thank you for keeping me honest. I should have stated the assumption from the outset.

Bandwagon In Flames · 04-10-2015, 09:07 PM

While I do agree with your points, I don't want a longer off-season or more time between games.

And there's no way the NHL would agree to it unless the PA agreed to an equal percent of contract/cap cuts with the lost revenue.

vilzeh · 04-10-2015, 09:11 PM

I kinda agree that 82 games is too much... 70 games would be perfect.

sharkov · 04-10-2015, 09:22 PM

The leafs would benefit from a much shorter NHL season.

Dion · 04-10-2015, 09:54 PM

I would like to see a shorter season where the Staney Cup is decided in mid to early May.

FlamesAddiction · 04-10-2015, 10:01 PM

With fewer games, they will just raise ticket prices as demand will go up.

GGG · 04-10-2015, 10:01 PM

I think expanding the Saturday coverage to have an afternoon game, 5 early games and two late games each Saturday has made the schedule much mor NFL like. And since more teams are playing Saturday more are play Tuesday and Thursday.

To me the lots of games in one day has a greater affect of increasing hockey intensity than reducing the number of games would.

Regulator75 · 04-10-2015, 10:12 PM

Why not 84 games, it's been done before.

browna · 04-10-2015, 10:19 PM

I'd maybe start earlier but keep the 82 games and end at the same time in June, with the thought to reduce a bunch of the back to back games.

Not a overall hockey fan of anything not Flames, so as soon as they're out, the care factor goes down pretty quickly. If the Flames are in it I'll watch until July.