Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Is anyone else really liking the shorter schedule?

Discussion

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,952 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:16 AM

Ok first of all, I'm a proponent of getting a full interlocking schedule. I think hockey fans deserve to see players from each team play in their building each season. It would mean teams in the East wouldn't have such cushy travel schedules, and even things out for teams.

However, I happen to really like the intensity, and the sort of make or break situation each game in a shortened schedule is. Games matter now from start to finish. Giving up points to a team on overtime is a partial loss. Does anyone else feel this way?

I know the argument of a shortened season will all factor back to money. Owners will not give up games. But I was thinking:

Play each team in your division 4 times= 16 games
Each team in your conference outside your division 2 times = 20 games
Play each team in the other conference twice 15 x 2= 30 games

66 game season. No one gets advantages on travel. Fans get to see every team. Owners lose 8 home games.

Win/win. Except of course for the owners. But if revenues are tied to salaries anyway, what's the issue?

Just a thought.

Edited by Ghostsof1915, 09 February 2013 - 11:26 AM.

  • 1
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#2 Please Call 911

Please Call 911

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 12

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:20 AM

Ok first of all, I'm a proponent of getting a full interlocking schedule. I think hockey fans deserve to see players from each team play in their building each season. It would mean teams in the East wouldn't have such cushy travel schedules, and even things out for teams.

However, I happen to really like the intensity, and the sort of make or break situation each game in a shortened schedule is. Games matter now from start to finish. Giving up points to a team on overtime is a partial loss. Does anyone else feel this way?

I know the argument of a shortened season will all factor back to money. Owners will not give up games. But I was thinking:

Play each team in your division 4 times= 16 games
Each team in your conference outside your division 2 times = 22 games
Play each team in the other conference twice 15 x 2= 30 games

68 game season. No one gets advantages on travel. Fans get to see every team. Owners lose 7 home games.

Win/win. Except of course for the owners. But if revenues are tied to salaries anyway, what's the issue?

Just a thought.


There's only 10 teams in the West not in the Northwest Division, so it should be 10 x 2 = 20 games, which makes a 66 game season.
  • 0

Posted Image

Please Call 911

Thanks Mash!


#3 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,952 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:25 AM

There's only 10 teams in the West not in the Northwest Division, so it should be 10 x 2 = 20 games, which makes a 66 game season.


My bad thanks.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#4 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,746 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:26 AM

I like it.

I generally hate preseason. Then we usually start slow. Christmas and the ASB disrupt the flow. And, although I like deep runs, hockey in June on sunny days is just weird.

This gets right down to the meat and potatoes of things. Short spurt, no real time to falter. Last men standing in a sprint.

We'll be healthier than previous years (knocking on wood) because our players are getting full recovery time and not rushing back. The timing could be perfect for that.

I like it. Wouldn't want this every year, as I need my full hockey fix, but this year every game counts and I like the urgency in that.
  • 0

Posted Image


#5 Please Call 911

Please Call 911

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 12

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:28 AM

My bad thanks.


As to my opinion - I don't mind it tbh, 82 games seems a long time waiting for the preseason and most of the time for like the beginning stretch we don't even try.

It should be better for the players as they won't tire as quickly, 16 less games can make a huge difference to a player's fatigue.

I don't mind this idea but again, as we all know when the lockout happened - all the owners care about is money. So this idea would never happen

Props to you though - I like it!
  • 0

Posted Image

Please Call 911

Thanks Mash!


#6 Goal:thecup

Goal:thecup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 07

Posted 09 February 2013 - 12:12 PM

I do like the intensity of this short season.

Maybe we start the preseason earlier and let it go on a bit longer, then a 66 or so game regular season and then start and end the playoffs earlier.

Owners still get all their games in and the season doesn't end in the summer.

The ice is so bad in the summer and it is so nice outside, I would rather be outside in May and June.
  • 0

#7 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,811 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 09 February 2013 - 12:13 PM

66 Game season is a fantastic idea.

edit- I'd also like the timing to shift a bit, say starting early September ending March with playoffs in Apr/May.

Edited by The Bookie, 09 February 2013 - 12:14 PM.

  • 1

#8 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,039 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 09 February 2013 - 12:16 PM

I've never been a fan of the 82-game schedule, and I too, think that a full interlocking schedule would be more fair, and great for fans to be able to see all teams every year. It also reduces this whole notion of "feeding" off a weak division.

82 games has always seemed like too many games in my opinion. As you said, because games are worth so much more this year, the games have been much more intense. Better hockey to watch.
  • 0

RIP LB RR PD


#9 Nashi

Nashi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,881 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 09

Posted 09 February 2013 - 12:45 PM

I just like the shortened season because of the more frequent games but I would choose a full 82 non-lockout season anyday.
  • 0

canucks141.png


#10 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,021 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 09 February 2013 - 05:50 PM

IMO if a win is 3 points and so on in this formula then a regular 82 game season is fine. But with 2 point wins and the shortened schedule it seems more exciting.
  • 0
Posted Image

#11 zombieksa

zombieksa

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,985 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 11

Posted 09 February 2013 - 06:36 PM

I think with the likely expansion to 32 teams a 76 game schedule is possible. 7x4 division + 24x2 nondivision = 76 games. Little more likely, losing 3 home games is a lot more likely than 8
  • 0
"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."
-Edgar Allen Poe

#12 bryguy26

bryguy26

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 22-June 10

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:38 PM

Ive always said a shorter season is whats best for the game long term!! Look at the NFL. The biggest league in the states for a reason. 16 games makes every game so important. In a regular 82 game season you can tell some games the players take the game off. Shorter season = better product = more interest. We also need to separate ourselves from the NBA with less games and to finish up before their season does. But yes the owners are greedy pigs and you could never convince them to shorten the season.
  • 0
Posted Image

#13 vcr1970

vcr1970

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 12

Posted 09 February 2013 - 10:28 PM

Ok first of all, I'm a proponent of getting a full interlocking schedule. I think hockey fans deserve to see players from each team play in their building each season. It would mean teams in the East wouldn't have such cushy travel schedules, and even things out for teams.

However, I happen to really like the intensity, and the sort of make or break situation each game in a shortened schedule is. Games matter now from start to finish. Giving up points to a team on overtime is a partial loss. Does anyone else feel this way?

I know the argument of a shortened season will all factor back to money. Owners will not give up games. But I was thinking:

Play each team in your division 4 times= 16 games
Each team in your conference outside your division 2 times = 20 games
Play each team in the other conference twice 15 x 2= 30 games

66 game season. No one gets advantages on travel. Fans get to see every team. Owners lose 8 home games.

Win/win. Except of course for the owners. But if revenues are tied to salaries anyway, what's the issue?

Just a thought.


It won't happen for the revenue problem you mention, but I love the idea.

I like that we get to see our team play every two or three days vs. sometimes waiting 5 or 6 days between games. I would take an abbreviated shortened season over the regular 82 game season any day.
  • 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.