Spungo*
Guest
It was a 100% certainty according to numerous reports right after the last Stanley Cup finals. What's happened to that concept? Anybody hear anything about it?
Canucks Fan said:
MS said:Hopefully the NHL and NHLPA realized that having less games generates less revenue, and that that's a bad thing for everyone. I can't believe it was ever even discussed in the first place. All a 72-game season would do would be to cut the pie that the two sides have been fighting so hard over by 10-15%.
What you ignore is that you have to find a balance between number of games and quality of games. With your logic (aside from the statistic thing) we could just improve the situation (enlarging the pie) making each team play 140 regular season games. I'm sure you agree that would not be the case.MS said:Hopefully the NHL and NHLPA realized that having less games generates less revenue, and that that's a bad thing for everyone. I can't believe it was ever even discussed in the first place. All a 72-game season would do would be to cut the pie that the two sides have been fighting so hard over by 10-15%.
Tekneek said:Dropping 10 games off of the schedule would reduce your home schedule by at LEAST 5 games...not 3 or 5.
It would not decrease revenue by one cent? Are you serious?
So, if a band is doing a tour of the US, and they do 20 shows instead of 30, you're saying their revenue would be exactly the same? How many dates can they scratch off and still make the same amount? Maybe they could just have one big show and have the same revenue?
Tekneek said:Dropping 10 games off of the schedule would reduce your home schedule by at LEAST 5 games...not 3 or 5.
It would not decrease revenue by one cent? Are you serious?
So, if a band is doing a tour of the US, and they do 20 shows instead of 30, you're saying their revenue would be exactly the same? How many dates can they scratch off and still make the same amount? Maybe they could just have one big show and have the same revenue?
helicecopter said:What you ignore is that you have to find a balance between number of games and quality of games. With your logic (aside from the statistic thing) we could just improve the situation (enlarging the pie) making each team play 140 regular season games. I'm sure you agree that would not be the case.
There are other factors:
too many games -> more injuries
too many games -> more tired players -> worse product on the ice
too many games -> no time to practice during the season, no time to try, train and implement any bit complicated offensive plays..
too many games -> more doping (could become a factor with the current tendency coming from USA government..see current problems on the new NBA collective agreement..)
too many games -> less important games! each game is 1/82 of the regular season.. no big deal..
too many games -> a very tight schedule that it's almost impossible to be furtherly compressed to let the best players properly take part at the Olympics. Note that the ten games' revenues the NHL would lose straight away could be more than compensated in the long terms having a well promoted TOP level Olympic tournament, which is the BEST available chance to publicize a sport needing to grow around the world.
Now, it's difficult to say which would be the perfect number of regular season games.. but personally i think 82 are way too many.
Tekneek said:That's a good analogy, but what about teams like Minnesota and Columbus that were selling out for much of the season? For instance Minnesota had a string of sellouts that went for longer than one season's worth of home games. You'd be telling them to throw away that extra revenue.
Tekneek said:That's a good analogy, but what about teams like Minnesota and Columbus that were selling out for much of the season? For instance Minnesota had a string of sellouts that went for longer than one season's worth of home games. You'd be telling them to throw away that extra revenue.
Tekneek said:That's a good analogy, but what about teams like Minnesota and Columbus that were selling out for much of the season? For instance Minnesota had a string of sellouts that went for longer than one season's worth of home games. You'd be telling them to throw away that extra revenue.
MS said:Or Vancouver. We sold out ever game last season. Each game is about $1.5 million in revenue. Axing 5 home dates would cost the team ~$7.5 million. That's probably more than we save with a salary cap.
That analogy works in about 5 of 30 NHL cities. Ticket sales are not the NHL's problem - the vast majority of buildings are mostly full most nights.
Spungo said:Not a good analogy at all.
A better one would be:
A band plays in *the same city* and the *same venue* for 41 times a year (the number of times each NHL team plays at home) and only sells out 18 of those 41 shows, with many of those shows playing to less than half capacity. The only shows that sell out regularly are on weekends. The tuesday and wednesday shows are almost always empty.
The band complains that they are tired and many of the shows are terrible because the band plays too damn many. There is also almost no demand for tickets because everybody knows there are so many damn shows by this band that anyone can get a ticket whenever they want. Fans are also sick of this band because they play from september (warm-up shows) all the way to june. When june comes around people are really sick and tired of this band.
The band decides that they could make their show better by getting more rest. So they cut their schedule by 5 shows, now playing 36 instead of 41. They will be better rested, play better, give fans a better show, and wont be playing from september untill june, thus not maiing people too sick of them. Gives people a chance to miss them and look forward to next years series of concerts.
Are less people going to go to the 36 shows than went to the 41 shows? Of course not, everyone who likes watching this band will still go, the only difference is that tickets are a little harder to get, the band is better rested and plays better, and the band plays to bigger crowds and plays to far more sellouts.
Back to hockey... getting rid of 5 wednesday games per year means those fans who went to thos 5 wednesday games will still want to see the team play, but will have to do so on friday, saturday or sunday. And once they get there, the playres will give them a better game.
So what? NHL has always used red line off-side and still it's arguing about getting rid of it..MS said:The league has been playing an ~80 game season for almost 40 years..
But there are problems now..MS said:None of these things were ever a problem before.
Agree.MS said:There doesn't need to be 10 freaking exhibition games for every team, either. 5-6 should be enough.
Agree.MS said:And start the bloody season on October 1. There's no reason to start on October 7-8 every year, either. There's an extra week of spacing right there.
MS said:If the league wants to cut games and shorten the season, shrink training camp and the preseason. It doesn't need to be nearly as long as it is, with the shape the players arrive in today. There doesn't need to be 10 freaking exhibition games for every team, either. 5-6 should be enough.
And start the bloody season on October 1. There's no reason to start on October 7-8 every year, either. There's an extra week of spacing right there.
Drake1588 said:The answer to the question at hand is that the owners were prepared to reduce the scheduled number of games providing they were able to get the NHLPA to agree to reduce contracts by a commensurate percentage of the whole. The union isn't about to do that for ten fewer games, and understanadbly so, and thus the idea died an early death. Good riddance, in my opinion.
Tekneek said:I'll watch hockey in June.
Spungo said:Thanks, but I was looking for any news about this becomming a reality. It was reported as a slam dunk for the 2004-2005 season (if there was one).