What Happened To The 72 Game Season?

[Spungo*]

I see you ignored my points about lost revenues from concessions, parking, and other ancilliary per game revenues. Are you going to increase the price of a beer 10% too to break even.

I didn't ignore anything. It was the exact same argument you made about revenue going down by 10% as a result of a 10% decrease in home games. It's just an incredibly short-sighted and terrible argument.

In fact, it's the *exact* same argument that led the NHL to leave FOX for ABC. The NHL was just as short-sighted as you are and jumped ship for a little more short term money, totally ignoring promotion, network-league relationships that had been built, quality of broadcasts, demographics, etc.

FOX had invested million and millions into the NHL and would have been loyal. FOX doesn't give away it's sports properties. But look... ABC flushed the NHL down the toilet the first chance it got. The NHL made a few more bucks in the short term but were forced to grovel at the feet of NBC or a zero rights fees deal. This is what happens with your short-term thinking.

 

[Resolute]

It would see a revenue increase, not a drop. It's not a very difficult concept to grasp.

More rested players = better product = more fans = higher ratings = more demand for tickets and boxes = more revenue. Very simple equation.

More rested players would be less likely to play the trap? Or clutch and grab? More rested players would make the goalies poorer at their positions?

Better product? How are we defining this? By scoring? The 80s featured tons of scoring. The 80s also featured fewer fans on average, and no TV deal at all, as opposed to having one now, even if it meant profit sharing. The 80s also featured an 80 game schedule.

More demand for tickets? Obviously impossible to make up the difference for teams playing at 90+% of capacity.

For the rest, consider that as much as 75% of the fans in the buildings are season ticket holders. They obviously cant come to the same game more than once, so you cant just argue that the overall attendance of 36 games would match that of 41 games. It is physically impossible,

And, of course, the losing teams wont draw more fans either, as nobody is going to rush out to see a team that sucks because you only have 36 opportunities to do so rather than 41.

You also lose 5 games of parking, concessions, merchandise, advertising, etc.

The only way to maintain revenue is by increasing ticket prices on top of cutting the season. Asking fans to essentially pay upwards of 15-20% more for their tickets is not going to increase demand.

 

[Resolute]

Do you have the Nhl network? If you do you should be able to watch a game from the 70's and a game from the new millenium within the same day. Just watch 2 of those games and try and figure out which one is faster and more physically demanding. If you cant figure it out, I'll give you a hand. THE GAMES NOWADAYS ARE FORE MORE PHYSICALLY DEMANDING THEN THE GAMES 30 YEARS AGO!!!!! Why is this so hard to understand. No player who chain smokes and sports a beer belly can keep pace for a single game in todays sport, never mind an 6 month 82 game regular season plus another grueling 2 months playoff war (if you intend to win the cup).

How you can you not comprehend this??

Wouldnt this argument contradict the "watered down talent pool" theory?

Players need to play less games because they are so much better than they were in the 70s and 80s, therefore the games are far more physically demanding.

So, are we aruging that the game was better when the players were less in shape, and less talented? By extension, that suggestion argues that the game has gotten worse because it is more physically demanding today. Logically, a shorter season with healthier players more able to withstand the rigors of the new-age NHL would only make the product worse, not better.

 

[Spungo*]

The only way to maintain revenue is by increasing ticket prices on top of cutting the season. Asking fans to essentially pay upwards of 15-20% more for their tickets is not going to increase demand.

20% more for tickets, eh? Been smoking a crack pipe?

 

[katodelder]

Would love to see a 72-game October-1 to May-31 schedule. For all the reasons people have stated above.

Any loss of revenue could be easily made up by:

a) Slightly raising ticket prices

b) Increasing rivalries by playing within your division more and not playing the other conference anymore (except for baseball-style interleague play). Reduced travel costs will also save the owners money.

 

[Youreallygotme]

I'm all for a decrease in games and increase in product. ANd if so, I'm also for that prelim round - 7 vs 10 8 vs 9 seed playoff to get into the real playoffs. That would make the regular season extremely exciting(race for the 6th spot and a guarunteed shot, who will get the 10th spot, etc)

 

[ShippinItDaily]

Wouldnt this argument contradict the "watered down talent pool" theory?

Players need to play less games because they are so much better than they were in the 70s and 80s, therefore the games are far more physically demanding.

So, are we aruging that the game was better when the players were less in shape, and less talented? By extension, that suggestion argues that the game has gotten worse because it is more physically demanding today. Logically, a shorter season with healthier players more able to withstand the rigors of the new-age NHL would only make the product worse, not better.

First of all, I never said anything about a watered down talent pool.

Im not saying that players need to play less games because they are better either. But if you have less games then players have more tiem to rest and they will be sharper, which will lead to less injuries which will mean less plugs in the league which will ultimately mean less watered down i guess.

My arguement is not based on whether or not players are able to withstand the 82 game grind. My greater concern is that less games makes each game more important.

People shouldnt just say that the NFL is the only league that can do this because they are the number 1 league in NA right now. Maybe they are the number 1 league becuase they do things right. THats what I believe. They run their league prety much as well as it can be run, the NHL does not. And fewer games is not the only reason for this, but it is a big reason.

 

[Tekneek]

If you think it is such a sound idea that will only increase revenue, why do you think the NHL has not agreed to it? Surely they would be interested in increasing their revenue, right? Why would they neglect something that would be so easy to address?

 

[Tekneek]

Would love to see a 72-game October-1 to May-31 schedule.

I hope you mean for the playoffs to end by May 31, right? The regular season right now usually ends around the first week or two in April. Taking 10 games off of the schedule and extending the regular season by a month and a half will be a little outrageous, wouldn't it?

Now onto the reference made to 'european football' in this thread...

Why not have a 58 game season where you play each team twice, home and away, and leave it at that? Forget conferences and divisions and go with a 30 team table. Top 16, regardless of where they are from, advance into the playoffs. Let's go for some promotion/relegation as well, and we can drop the worst team each year and bring up the AHL's champion.

 

[Spungo*]

If you think it is such a sound idea that will only increase revenue, why do you think the NHL has not agreed to it? Surely they would be interested in increasing their revenue, right? Why would they neglect something that would be so easy to address?

Oh yeah, the NHL has made every smart business move in history.


And how do you know they haven't? Hear about a certain CBA thats being drafted right now? I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if there is a 76 game schedule in the new CBA.

 

[helicecopter]

The NHL has survived for a long time without Olympic involvement,

Ah, surviving is the goal.. improving is forbidden?

and came back from the previous lockout without it.

So what?

They don't need the Olympics to save the NHL.

Its' just that Olympics could help..but maybe you think NHL doesn't need help and must spit on opportunities..

The Olympics has needed the NHL players to save itself.

I'm figuring you going around the world before '94 (last Olympics without NHLers) and asking people if they care more about Olympics or the Stanley cup (or even more 5 regular season games..), guess the replies...

 

[helicecopter]

Considering the NHL has played an 82 game season with the Olympics before, I think they could probably do it again.

Oh yes, freeing 12/14 days every four years for the most important competion in the world , not even letting players to properly recover from jet lag, preventing teams from practicing together thus hampering the quality of the event, even preventing some teams (Slovakia for example) from using their best players..

 

[helicecopter]

Do you think revenues would double if the NHL played a 164 game schedule? By this logic, revenues would increase by 100%. It doesn't work that way. Revenues are dependant on how popular the NHL is and the NHL is at a near all-time low right now.

 

[Tekneek]

I'm figuring you going around the world before '94 (last Olympics without NHLers) and asking people if they care more about Olympics or the Stanley cup (or even more 5 regular season games..), guess the replies...

The whole reason that professionals were allowed to start competing was an attempt by the Olympics to gain back interest and ratings that were beginning to wane. NHL players being involved is a portion of that. The Olympics did not start taking current pro players to help out the NHL. They did it to help themselves.

EDIT (to add more):

I couldn't care much less about NHL players being involved in the Olympics. I would find the Olympics much more exciting if it were guys who were currently amateurs. It's why the World Junior Championships are more exciting than the World Championships. Granted, not all of them are juniors/amateurs, but certainly a lot more of them are. Maybe they should do the same for hockey that they do for soccer in the Olympics. U-23 teams with 3 overagers per team.

 

[Tekneek]

Oh yes, freeing 12/14 days every four years for the most important competion in the world , not even letting players to properly recover from jet lag, preventing teams from practicing together thus hampering the quality of the event, even preventing some teams (Slovakia for example) from using their best players..

Players should have built a release into their contracts for their national teams, or play in Europe instead of the NHL.

 

[Tekneek]

Oh yeah, the NHL has made every smart business move in history.


And how do you know they haven't? Hear about a certain CBA thats being drafted right now? I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if there is a 76 game schedule in the new CBA.

I was just asking what your take was, not saying it had to be a bad idea simply because it was not implemented. You're contention is that they've blown it off because they are incompetent businessmen, judging from that response. That is plausible, given the current state of their league.

I would be surprised if the number of games in a season is stipulated like that. Why do you think they would choose 76 games as their number?

 

[helicecopter]

The whole reason that professionals were allowed to start competing was an attempt by the Olympics to gain back interest and ratings that were beginning to wane. NHL players being involved is a portion of that. The Olympics did not start taking current pro players to help out the NHL. They did it to help themselves.

Of course Olympics benefit from NHL partecipations, but that doesn't mean a well promoted top level Olympic hockey tournament would not benefit even more ice hockey popularity (hence worldwide interest in NHL.. hence, guess what, revenues for NHL! ).
Then again, talking like it's the Olympics (and not the NHL) in need for help really sounds like a joke..

EDIT (to add more):

I couldn't care much less about NHL players being involved in the Olympics.

Don't worry, it was already clear.. and it fits perfectly with your short-time thinking.

I would find the Olympics much more exciting if it were guys who were currently amateurs.

I guess it's your right to prefer crappy hockey to top level hockey..

Maybe they should do the same for hockey that they do for soccer in the Olympics. U-23 teams with 3 overagers per team.

Oh yeah.. in fact soccer is the only sport that at the Olympics grabs less interest than during its other competitions..

 

[MS]

This notion that the quality of play would go up substantially, and that it would cause so many more people to go to games that it would compensate for 5 fewer home dates is a strange one.

The NHL regular season goes for almost 7 months. Cutting 10 games would cut the schedule by 1 game every 3 weeks. Is one less game every 3 weeks really going to make a stunning difference in the energy of the players and quality of the games? I find that pretty unlikely. This effect might occur if the season was cut to 30 games (1/week), but a 72 game season is not going to make a huge change to players' health and energy.

 

[RockLobster]

This notion that the quality of play would go up substantially, and that it would cause so many more people to go to games that it would compensate for 5 fewer home dates is a strange one.

The NHL regular season goes for almost 7 months. Cutting 10 games would cut the schedule by 1 game every 3 weeks. Is one less game every 3 weeks really going to make a stunning difference in the energy of the players and quality of the games? I find that pretty unlikely. This effect might occur if the season was cut to 30 games (1/week), but a 72 game season is not going to make a huge change to players' health and energy.

THANK YOU!

While I don't disagree with Spungo's thoughts, as they form and work great as a theory...but by saying that absolutely quality of play will go up as a result of 10 games being axed is exaggeration...sure the possibility is there, and it is a good possibility.

However I think that when the NHL comes back it is going to need all the games they can get...and if they want to keep players fresh, why not cut some preseason games (as mentioned in this thread)...I mean 8-10 games is a bit much imo...though I could be wrong...I always thought that 5 was a good number for preseason games.

***EDIT***
I have wondered is it the conesensus that 82 games is too many? I mean people here are comparing it to only the NFL in terms of scheduling, but I think people realize that the popularity and revenue level of the NFL is on a different level than that of the NHL....do they not realize that the NBA offers 82 games, and that the MLB offers a ridiculous 162?

 

[Tekneek]

Then again, talking like it's the Olympics (and not the NHL) in need for help really sounds like a joke..

Why were the rules changed in the Olympics to allow professionals? Who got the most benefit out of that?

Don't worry, it was already clear.. and it fits perfectly with your short-time thinking.

How is that? I want to see the future of hockey with an emphasis on younger players who have not hit the professional ranks yet. That is not "short-time thinking." It's forward thinking. A young team is way more exciting than the team of 30+ year-old retreads that the US sends to the Olympics these days.

I guess it's your right to prefer crappy hockey to top level hockey..

Oh yes. This helps your point out quite well. As already explained, it's not about crappy hockey. It's about seeing something better, with guys who may actually have a future in the game.

Oh yeah.. in fact soccer is the only sport that at the Olympics grabs less interest than during its other competitions..

You're comparing it to the World Cup, perhaps? Hockey could have a World Cup every 4 years, if it wanted to. They could make that their elite tournament, too. Failure to do so is something the various governing bodies/leagues should take the blame for. Building up a real World Cup of Hockey that was held every 4 years would benefit the NHL and all hockey much more than releasing players in the middle of a current season would.

 

[Spungo*]

I was just asking what your take was, not saying it had to be a bad idea simply because it was not implemented. You're contention is that they've blown it off because they are incompetent businessmen, judging from that response. That is plausible, given the current state of their league.

I would be surprised if the number of games in a season is stipulated like that. Why do you think they would choose 76 games as their number?

Just a guess really. I know that there are a LOT of people in the hockey world, from players, to coaches, to general managers, to some league officials that want a shorter schedule.

 

[helicecopter]

Why were the rules changed in the Olympics to allow professionals?

The situation was simply grotesque. Pro athletes banned from the Olympics while almost all the partecipant athletes were actually professional athletes none the less .. what a joke.. and of course the change was in the best interests of both players and Olympics.

Who got the most benefit out of that?

Would the NHL be smart enough to promote it (as it represents BY FAR the best opportunity for marketing the sport) and make the Olympic tournament as good as possible, the NHL would be the one benefiting the most.

How is that? I want to see the future of hockey with an emphasis on younger players who have not hit the professional ranks yet. That is not "short-time thinking." It's forward thinking. A young team is way more exciting than the team of 30+ year-old retreads that the US sends to the Olympics these days.

I want to see the best hockey possible and i think to show the best hockey possible it's important to make it grow. Quite simple i would say.
And i want to see the best hockey possible even more in the most important event for that sport (which is the Olympics, in case you missed)

Oh yes. This helps your point out quite well. As already explained, it's not about crappy hockey. It's about seeing something better, with guys who may actually have a future in the game.

Ah, so you get better hockey from guys who may actually have a future in the game than from the current superstars of the game?? Let's leave guys for the future show what they can do outside of the most important event, if they are not good enough for that event yet.

You're comparing it to the World Cup, perhaps?

No.

Hockey could have a World Cup every 4 years, if it wanted to. They could make that their elite tournament, too. Failure to do so is something the various governing bodies/leagues should take the blame for.

Agree. But unfortunately only real (already) hockey fans care about the World Cup, while a lot of people come in contact with the sport through the Olympics..
The real World Cup you are talking about would be great to watch and have great level of play, but could not have any impact comparing with the Olympics as for increasing ice hockey popularity.

 

[Tekneek]

No.

Then what did you mean? Olympic soccer is less interesting than ordinary pro leagues? I assumed you meant Olympic soccer is less interesting than World Cup soccer, but obviously that stumped you so you must not have meant that.

 

[helicecopter]

Then what did you mean? Olympic soccer is less interesting than ordinary pro leagues?

Absolutely. Soccer fans really don't care much about the Olympic tournament. No tradition, rules and owner clubs prevent almost all the best players from playing, few great soccer nations allowed in the tourney,..
Soccer already has established tournaments for soccer national teams that enjoy GREAT success, THE great ones being the World Cup and, for Europe, the Euro tourney. A completely different situation from hockey.

 

[Tekneek]

Soccer already has established tournaments for soccer national teams that enjoy GREAT success, THE great ones being the World Cup and, for Europe, the Euro tourney. A completely different situation from hockey.

Here you reference the World Cup, but when I asked if that was what you meant you seemed confused...?

Hockey could create their own World Cup and build it up. FIFA had to start the soccer/football World Cup one day as well, and it did not always have the stature that it has today. Hockey could one day have that sort of place in the world if they kept holding it on a regular basis. Hockey would not ever have the same sort of appeal as soccer, because it is so much more expensive to play the game, but it could go a long way and would not infringe upon club play.