04-10-2015, 11:09 PM
|
#21
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regulator75
Why not 84 games, it's been done before.
|
Bring back the neutral site games!
Vegas and Quebec City!!!
|
|
|
04-10-2015, 11:15 PM
|
#22
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
|
I would go with an even 80 games. Could remove a couple of back-to-back games.
|
|
|
04-10-2015, 11:40 PM
|
#23
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
It's a gate driven league. End of story.
|
|
|
04-10-2015, 11:53 PM
|
#24
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
|
I wish the NHL season started the day after the Stanley Cup was awarded. Sure it's hard to maintain interest in the NHL, but summer is boring without hockey!
|
|
|
04-11-2015, 03:53 AM
|
#25
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
It's a gate driven league. End of story.
|
Chicken and egg.
If you ever want to change that, I think you need to have more meaningful regular season games that can be sold to TV audiences as special things.
Plus it's not like every game is a sellout right now.
I also happen to think that the quality of the game clearly suffers from too many games. Way too many nights over the season one team just doesn't show up to play.
|
|
|
04-11-2015, 04:46 AM
|
#26
|
tromboner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northendzone
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.
|
Less games = less supply of games = higher ticket price per game (though seasons tickets might fall). Compare, for instance, the prices of NFL tickets vs. the prices of NHL/NBA tickets vs. the prices of MLB tickets. You want lower prices, increase supply.
Last edited by SebC; 04-11-2015 at 04:49 AM.
|
|
|
04-11-2015, 06:37 AM
|
#27
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOWITZER
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.
|
If you wanted to increase interest you'd keep the end of the season at the same point but move the start forward. With football happening in the fall in the US (Thursday/Sunday/Monday - NFL, Friday - High school, Saturday - College) some teams struggle with attendence early in the year.
|
|
|
04-11-2015, 08:30 AM
|
#28
|
Franchise Player
|
Nobody doubts that the quality of play would be higher with a shorter season. Better for players, better for fans. But it would mean less money in the pockets of owners, so it will never happen.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
04-11-2015, 08:47 AM
|
#29
|
In the Sin Bin
|
If the basis of the argument is that there is more interest in "do or die" games, then no, changing the schedule will not have an impact in this regard. Games are not "do or die" until the very end of the schedule when teams, well, have to win or they are out. In general, this is really only the final three or four games for a handful of teams. And that would not change in a 70 game season vs. 82.
|
|
|
04-11-2015, 09:10 AM
|
#30
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
|
Of course a shorter season would improve the quality of play...but owners are never going to agree to less income, nor the players to less salary.
|
|
|
04-11-2015, 09:14 AM
|
#31
|
Franchise Player
|
I'm a hockey nut. I don't want less games at all. Three day breaks from games during the season kill me. Imagine having that between almost all games? No thanks.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:30 AM.
|
|