Bmwolf21 Posted May 11, 2008 Posted May 11, 2008 I think the hockey season is way too long. The season should start in November and Stanley Cup finals finished in March. A November to March schedule isn't practical or possible. To do that you would reduce the league to a three-month regular season and two months for the playoffs, and the playoffs would have to start in late January/early February. Considering the average team plays approx. 3-4 games per week in the regular season, a November-Feb schedule would permit only around 54 games per team, which is less than they've played going back to 45-46 - when there were only six teams. Plus there are a lot of teams that share facilities with NBA teams so there would probably be a lot more scheduling conflicts, especially come NHL playoff time.
Alaska Darin Posted May 11, 2008 Posted May 11, 2008 A November to March schedule isn't practical or possible. To do that you would reduce the league to a three-month regular season and two months for the playoffs, and the playoffs would have to start in late January/early February. Considering the average team plays approx. 3-4 games per week in the regular season, a November-Feb schedule would permit only around 54 games per team, which is less than they've played going back to 45-46 - when there were only six teams. Plus there are a lot of teams that share facilities with NBA teams so there would probably be a lot more scheduling conflicts, especially come NHL playoff time. To say nothing of the NHL trying to play as many games as possible on the weekends, to make the game more family friendly. Cutting down the number of weekends would severely cut into attendance.
Fan in San Diego Posted May 11, 2008 Posted May 11, 2008 A November to March schedule isn't practical or possible. To do that you would reduce the league to a three-month regular season and two months for the playoffs, and the playoffs would have to start in late January/early February. Considering the average team plays approx. 3-4 games per week in the regular season, a November-Feb schedule would permit only around 54 games per team, which is less than they've played going back to 45-46 - when there were only six teams. Plus there are a lot of teams that share facilities with NBA teams so there would probably be a lot more scheduling conflicts, especially come NHL playoff time. What about hockey's roots where the game was only played when the weather was cold enough to maintain ice? What did they do back then ?
Alaska Darin Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 What about hockey's roots where the game was only played when the weather was cold enough to maintain ice? What did they do back then ? When would that be? Hockey dates back to the 1800s, indoor rinks to later that century, and the NHL back to 1917. Are you really trying to compare any era to what's going on today? The problem with what you're suggesting is it disregards the economic situation of today. The NHL makes the vast majority of their money from their gate. They need to play as many games on weekends as possible and that means extending the season's length. They also do all they can to avoid playing on Sundays during the NHL season. Cutting the season down to 70 games or so would be great but no business is going to eliminate 15% of their possible revenue events unless there's a good reason to do so.
Bmwolf21 Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 What about hockey's roots where the game was only played when the weather was cold enough to maintain ice? What did they do back then ? When are we talking about? Back in the 1910s - 1920s? I have no idea what they did way back then, but according to my quick research at hockeydb.com the NHL hasn't played a schedule of less than 60 games since '45-46. EDIT: Oops, Darin beat me to it. Still, the point stands 45-46 was the first season of 60 games, up from 50 per season from the previous four years, and before that it was 48 games a season going back to '31-32.
KD in CA Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 The games I've been to in Raleigh (Canes vs. Sabres and Habs) the past 3 years have made me lose even more respect for them. Mostly because I saw a lot of signs and I think a couple of shirts that said "Hillbilly Hockey" If you going to enjoy hockey, Don't mix Moonshine and Tony Stewart in to it. Leave it at the race track and learn something about the game Hurricanes "Fans" And another thing. A couple years back my brother and I were at a Sabres vs. Canes game. I think it was Max on an odd man rush slide to poke check the puck away from one of the opposing players, and this kid said "Why you sliding around out there, this ain't baseball" No kid. We really need a law requiring the immediate relocation of all NHL teams south of the Mason-Dixon line back to Canada. The Gretzky to LA trade was one of hockey's darkest days for what it set in motion.
LongLiveRalph Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 If you are a fan of the sport of basketball, watch Chris Paul play, and enjoy....The kid is something else. Skills galore and a total pro.
molson_golden2002 Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 All American hockey fans should be incredibly thankful that the average citizen hasn't discovered our game. It's truly one of the things that makes it great. I think the worst thing that could ever happen to the NHL is getting "regular American sport's fan" in the building on a regular basis. That's why I hate all these people who are out there trying to "expand" the sport. That outdoor game was a fiasco in my opinion
Fan in San Diego Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 When would that be? Hockey dates back to the 1800s, indoor rinks to later that century, and the NHL back to 1917. Are you really trying to compare any era to what's going on today? The problem with what you're suggesting is it disregards the economic situation of today. The NHL makes the vast majority of their money from their gate. They need to play as many games on weekends as possible and that means extending the season's length. They also do all they can to avoid playing on Sundays during the NHL season. Cutting the season down to 70 games or so would be great but no business is going to eliminate 15% of their possible revenue events unless there's a good reason to do so. I understand your points completely, I lose interest in sports where the season is too long and games become unimportant because there are too many. Baseball is like that for me as well. I cant get excited about the playoffs of hockey when I'm going swimming later on in the day. That is what makes football so exciting, there are only 16 games and every game is very important to make the playoff.
KnightRider Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 All American hockey fans should be incredibly thankful that the average citizen hasn't discovered our game. It's truly one of the things that makes it great.I think the worst thing that could ever happen to the NHL is getting "regular American sport's fan" in the building on a regular basis. I think you are right. WRT the number of games, as long as they can make more money with a longer regular season, there will be pressure to grow the regular season. I suspect that the NFL is going to expand their season pretty soon, too. There is too much money to be made by doing that.
Recommended Posts