Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Shorter regular season permanently?


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

Poll: Shorter regular season permanently? (68 member(s) have cast votes)

Are you in favour of a shorter regular season?

  1. Yes (32 votes [47.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.06%

  2. No (36 votes [52.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.94%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Super_Canuck

Super_Canuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 09

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:21 PM

What do you guys think of having a shorter NHL regular season permanently? I, personally would love to see fewer games on the schedule in the regular season. IMO, 82 games are just too many, the season just drags on and the players become more fatigued which leads to a dip in the level of play. The more games you have, the less meaningful they become. I know football is a completely different sport, but look at the NFL. They only play 16 games and every game means so much.

I'd suggest having something like 60-70 games. I think this would produce more exciting hockey because 1) the players would be fresher and less fatigued with less work load 2) it would produce more meaningful games since there would be fewer games to be played.

This would also produce better and more exciting playoff hockey because of the above given reason #1. Start the playoffs in mid-march and have the cup handed out by mid May. This way you're not dragging it out all the way to mid June. The NHL playoffs would also not have to compete head to head with the NBA playoffs in the U.S market and we all the know the U.S market is what Bettman and league mostly care about. They'd get far better ratings and TV numbers if they start their playoffs one month prior to the NBA playoffs.

Of course, I know the NHL would never decrease the number of games because less games mean less revenue and we all know it's about the money. But I still, however, would like to see the season finish earlier even if it is an 82 game season.
  • 4

#2 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,073 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:38 PM

I would love to see the NHL go back to 72 games, but it's never going to happen. Although the players may be willing to let go some of their salary in exchange for a shorter season, I don't see the teams willing to give up the revenue.

Thing is though, if they were to go with a shorter schedule, I don't think it should make the calendar shorter. I think it would be better to spread the games out just a little more to reduce fatigue and the chance of injury.

On the other hand, I would like to see the season end earlier, but I think they should accomplish this by starting earlier. I think it would be great to have training camp and pre-season in August and get the season going on Labour Day.

So to summarize my rambling... 72 game season, September to March, raise the Stanley Cup before the end of May.
  • 3
Posted Image

#3 Where's Wellwood

Where's Wellwood

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,095 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 10

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:03 AM

I wouldn't mind a shorter season by decreasing the number of games played against other teams in our division.

The breakdown of the games should be something like

1) A Home and Away against every other team in the league. (29 x 2) games
2) An extra game against the other teams in your conference (29 x 2)+14 games=72 games.
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to khalifawiz501 for the sig.
My old sig: http://tinypic.com/v...=5#.UlSrrlAWJ7U

#4 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,635 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:12 AM

While a shorter season would be good to reduce fatigue and injury, I'd rather it stay the same so that there's more games to watch.

Canucks hockey gets me through the long winters.. :P

Edited by BUREV, 02 November 2012 - 12:12 AM.

  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#5 tigbond

tigbond

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 126 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 07

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:42 AM

I voted yes, but it will never happen....big revenue comes in for every game played...
  • 0

#6 ChuckNORRIS4Cup

ChuckNORRIS4Cup

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,880 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 02:04 AM

I voted NO, because I love hockey and even though you can tell some games aren't as meaningful, because yes maybe from fatigue, I still want to watch the game and watch hockey as much as I can in a year that's how good it is. If anything I wish it was a shorter pre season, the Sedins and Keslers, or Luongos don't even play until like the 4th or 5th pre season game, boring. As far as the season goes I still want to watch 82 games and playoffs no matter what, I'd be more upset if it was less games to be honest.

But don't get me wrong OP I understand your view on the whole situation, I just wouldn't want it, and plus I could care less about Bettman and the US especially since I don't care for Basketball. Bring on the HOCKEY.
  • 0

Eh8NO.jpg

Trevor Linden Quote Nov. 29th 2012 [Asked if he would return to the game?]
"The game has been with me for a long time, if the right opportunity came about, you never know"


#7 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,450 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 02 November 2012 - 02:32 AM

Agree and I think this would be a no brainer if money wasnt an issue.
  • 0

#8 Burnsey

Burnsey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 02 November 2012 - 03:08 AM

Maybe cut it by 10, but no more. Sometime it seems to drag but then again thats what makes the final game and series so fun to watch. You see players tired, hurt, some playing with one good hand, etc. It's amazing to watch that kind of dedication imo.
  • 0

team-canada-jarome-iginla-photo.jpg


#9 Kesler's Nose

Kesler's Nose

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 03:51 AM

Would be nice, in a way.. But it won't happen, they would lose money which is something they won't be willing to do. (Minus this lockout of course) lol Also I enjoy watching hockey so much, I actually like that I get to see 82 games every year. What I would like to see, is a best of 5 series for the playoffs instead of 7, it would give all the games even more impact. :shock: :)
  • 0

"It's an opportunity, we don't look at it as a last chance... We look at it as an opportunity to do something great. We are going to take it period by period, shift by shift. You just have to be better than the guy across from you... Every guy in this locker room I can say believes we can do this." - Ryan Kesler

Posted Image


#10 nux4lyfe

nux4lyfe

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,905 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 03

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:08 AM

While a shorter season would be good to reduce fatigue and injury, I'd rather it stay the same so that there's more games to watch.

Canucks hockey gets me through the long winters.. :P


Even with a shorter season you'd still get plenty of games through 'the long winters'.
  • 1

13zpnd4.jpg

Thank You Twilight Sparkle for the dope sig!


#11 zombieksa

zombieksa

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,942 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:26 AM

If the league expanded to 32 teams I could see 2x31 and another 2x7 for division rivals for 76 games, but chances are they would add a home n home against one team in each division
  • 1
"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."
-Edgar Allen Poe

#12 babych

babych

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,107 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 08

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:52 AM

As I posted in the other thread - a shorter season plus a contraction of 2-4 teams would really raise the quality of hockey in the NHL.
  • 0
QUOTE
(shiznak@Jun 17 2008, 08:00 PM)
Kesler was lucky to score 20 this year since the injury to Morrison allowed him to do so.

I doubt Kesler would ever break 15 goals in his career again.

#13 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,939 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:29 AM

screw that, i'd rather have hockey all year long with the only offseason being when you are eliminated from the playoffs, and then 2 weeks after the cup is handed out for training camp and drafting.



MOAR HOCKEY!!!! NOT LESS!!!!
  • 0

#14 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 02 November 2012 - 07:00 AM

While a shorter season would be good to reduce fatigue and injury, I'd rather it stay the same so that there's more games to watch.

Canucks hockey gets me through the long winters.. :P


I can't stand hockey once it gets into late spring shorter seasons means may at the latest.
  • 0
Posted Image

#15 uber_pwnzor

uber_pwnzor

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined: 07-December 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 08:26 AM

MOAR HOCKEY!!!! NOT LESS!!!!


This.
  • 0

#16 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,939 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 02 November 2012 - 08:31 AM

This.

I have to work all year long, why don't they?
  • 0

#17 EV604

EV604

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 987 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 09

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:28 AM

What do you guys think of having a shorter NHL regular season permanently? I, personally would love to see fewer games on the schedule in the regular season. IMO, 82 games are just too many, the season just drags on and the players become more fatigued which leads to a dip in the level of play. The more games you have, the less meaningful they become. I know football is a completely different sport, but look at the NFL. They only play 16 games and every game means so much.

I'd suggest having something like 60-70 games. I think this would produce more exciting hockey because 1) the players would be fresher and less fatigued with less work load 2) it would produce more meaningful games since there would be fewer games to be played.

This would also produce better and more exciting playoff hockey because of the above given reason #1. Start the playoffs in mid-march and have the cup handed out by mid May. This way you're not dragging it out all the way to mid June. The NHL playoffs would also not have to compete head to head with the NBA playoffs in the U.S market and we all the know the U.S market is what Bettman and league mostly care about. They'd get far better ratings and TV numbers if they start their playoffs one month prior to the NBA playoffs.

Of course, I know the NHL would never decrease the number of games because less games mean less revenue and we all know it's about the money. But I still, however, would like to see the season finish earlier even if it is an 82 game season.


I think someone named Francesco mite disagree with you. Less games means less money. Salary cap would come down, players would make less, owners would make less. Fail

  • 0

#18 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,450 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:02 PM

Im kind of surprised people are so against this.

Were always hearing about how teams in the east have a significant advantage thanks to their travel schedule.

The Canucks would benefit from this as much or more then any other team imo.

It would also emphasize the need to play well all season, rather then have teams like LA who caught fire at the right time.
  • 0

#19 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:09 PM

I don't like the playoffs going into June. But $$$$$$$$$$$$$ so it will never happen. There is a chance the season will be lengthened but no chance of being shortened.
  • 0

#20 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,441 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:22 PM

Voted Yes but it will never happen.

$$$$$ money man $$$$$$$$
  • 0
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#21 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:40 PM

I don't like the playoffs going into June.


Yeah, I don't like that part either. I'm ok with the length, I just wish the whole season could start and end a month earlier.
  • 1

#22 Red Dragons

Red Dragons

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 03:14 PM

How about we focus on having a season before we shorten it.
  • 0

#23 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,117 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 03:18 PM

It should be up to the players. They're the ones that have to actually go out there and play and do all the rigorous activity and travel. Of course the owners will cry about it. Losing out on a couple million is a real blow to your bank account when you've got 400 million in there already.
  • 0
Posted Image

#24 Peaches

Peaches

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,391 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 03:22 PM

Do I want it to happen? Yes.

Will it happen? No.
  • 0

2qn360i.jpg

Feminism will be outlawed. Mostly because it's a backwards idiotic viewpoint that doesn't serve any real progressive purpose.

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#25 Oh Whisht

Oh Whisht

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 03:28 PM

I would like to see less games, and the season end earlier. By the time the playoffs are ending, it's almost hard to get excited about it, especially if our team is out. There's too much to do outside on those long, light nights. I think it would be very beneficial to the players to get more time between games. It would be nice to see people playing at their best, not dragging their butt at the end of the season.
  • 0

#26 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68,946 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:03 PM

I think it should stay the same.

No more. No less.
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#27 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:04 PM

Anyone else remember the old saying "If it isn't broken, don't fix it"? There haven't been any real problems with an 82 game season, a shorter season would only further hurt the struggling markets.
  • 0
CANUCKS TILL I DIE

#28 Super_Canuck

Super_Canuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 09

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:29 PM

As I posted in the other thread - a shorter season plus a contraction of 2-4 teams would really raise the quality of hockey in the NHL.


Yes I agree! 2-4 teams less would disperse more talent among the remaining teams and less games would generate higher quality of play
  • 0

#29 Super_Canuck

Super_Canuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 09

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:31 PM

MOAR HOCKEY!!!! NOT LESS!!!!


This.


Grammer police you didn't notice the spelling mistake there? lol
  • 0

#30 Super_Canuck

Super_Canuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 09

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:33 PM

screw that, i'd rather have hockey all year long with the only offseason being when you are eliminated from the playoffs, and then 2 weeks after the cup is handed out for training camp and drafting.



MOAR HOCKEY!!!! NOT LESS!!!!


When you have too much of something, people usually get bored of it no matter what it is. Less would create much more demand and interest which is better for business
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.