28-36 game schedule or work for 05-06?

[littleD]

What you rather have the NHL and NHLPA doing? Trying to get together in desperation like they are right no to salvage a 28-36 game schedule, or should the finally just come out and say there will be no NHL this year and work on a CBA in time for the start of the 2005-2006 NHL season?

Click to read more...

 

[FLYLine27*]

Obviously I want hockey this season....so a 28-36 game schedule is a-ok with me.

 

[SENSible1*]

I'd rather watch hockey, but if it means the owners abandoning linkage, then I'd rather wait as long as it takes.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

Hockey now! provided there is a deal that will preserve the league. Don't rush into a bad deal for the sake of saving the season.

 

[amazingcrwns]

It's very important to have a season, Not so much for diehard fans like us but for the casual fan who will walk away forever if there is no season. Lockouts always hurt the sport, but cancelling a season would be huge.

That being said, having a season isn't as important as the health of the league. If we have a season and the NHL has to close it's doors in 3 years forever then that won't work. So having a season is important but not the most important aspect of these negotiations.

 

[Munchausen]

Just because I do not beleive all the little things remaining to be done by the league and 30 teams can be done well in a short enough timespan to have a meaningful season (signing players, be it RFAs or UFAs, training camp, rule changes, etc.), I'll say I'd rather them not to rush it and arrive fully prepared to start an 82 game season next year. I don't care much for a 25-30 game season, which is all we'll get if there's a season to be had.

Can you give away awards based on 30 games? Can you determine draft and playoff rankings based on 30 games? I don't think so, or at least I don't want to.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Just because I do not beleive all the little things remaining to be done by the league and 30 teams can be done well in a short enough timespan to have a meaningful season (signing players, be it RFAs or UFAs, training camp, rule changes, etc.), I'll say I'd rather them not to rush it and arrive fully prepared to start an 82 game season next year. I don't care much for a 25-30 game season, which is all we'll get if there's a season to be had.

Can you give away awards based on 30 games? Can you determine draft and playoff rankings based on 30 games? I don't think so, or at least I don't want to.

Lets not forget though....if they dont come to an agreement in time for this season its far from certain that they will come to an agreement in time for next Sept. Now they are pushing and pushing to try to get something..but once the season is cancelled both sides will just ease away from the table for a few months like they did Oct-Dec. The only way we"re 100% of a season starting on time next season..is if they come to an agreement this season.

 

[Quantas]

The biggest argument for holding a 36 game season this year is if, as it has been speculated for so long, they shorten the regular season to 72 games. If they do that, I'm willing to accept 36 games for this year, otherwise forget it.

 

[SENSfreak_03]

the league needs a short season for nothing more then saving the game. if a deal can be made, why wait to start it back up? cancelling the season would be absolutly devastating to the game. if the deal is made, i dont see how they can cancel the season.

i dont know if a 36 game schedule has enough meaning, but im not gonna object to it.

 

[tripledekehockey]

i want a short season for some hockey as long as the game comes out on top in the end

 

[jacketracket*]

Work towards an agreement that benefts both sides long-term, next season.

I don't like the idea of last-minute, marathon negotiations that possibly result in some sort of cobbled-together short-term deal that leaves the whole situation back where it began.

Negotiating a pact in order to save scrapping the season, rather than fixing the problem, is dangerous.

 

[Munchausen]

the league needs a short season for nothing more then saving the game. if a deal can be made, why wait to start it back up? cancelling the season would be absolutly devastating to the game. if the deal is made, i dont see how they can cancel the season.

I've heard this argument time and time again, but honestly, if this can give a fatal blow to the weakest markets out there, I don't care all that much. Bettman saw too big, he expanded too fast in cities that did not care for hockey. There's not enough talent in this league for 30 teams. I understand the financial parity the league is after, but this isn't charity either, it's a business. If a team cannot draw the fans, it is not meant to be. The rest of the teams with a solid fanbase will likely rise up again from all this, whether it be from a partially or fully canceled season.

 

[Twine Seeking Missle]

I'll take a one game season at this point

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

If they dont save THIS season, chances are they wont start on time NEXT season. So in order to have next season we need to get a deal done for this one. Thats my take.