Ghostsof1915 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please Call 911 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 9, 2013 Author Share Posted February 9, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please Call 911 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 My bad thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goal:thecup Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashi Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 I just like the shortened season because of the more frequent games but I would choose a full 82 non-lockout season anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombieksa Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryguy26 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcr1970 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.