Super_Canuck Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where's Wellwood Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigbond Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I voted yes, but it will never happen....big revenue comes in for every game played... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckNORRIS4Cup Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Agree and I think this would be a no brainer if money wasnt an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsey Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler's Nose Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nux4lyfe Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombieksa Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babych Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 MOAR HOCKEY!!!! NOT LESS!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EV604 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I don't like the playoffs going into June. But $$$$$$$$$$$$$ so it will never happen. There is a chance the season will be lengthened but no chance of being shortened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Voted Yes but it will never happen. $$$$$ money man $$$$$$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.