Injury Report: Braun, Vlasic

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,301
9,174
530
What a dumb time for a break. Let's schedule 8 in 14 nights or something prior to the break then jam more games in after!

No, how about doing away with the stupid break and using the extra days to schedule less back to backs...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SharksAddict

one2gamble

Registered User
Dec 24, 2007
17,002
7,991
What a dumb time for a break. Let's schedule 8 in 14 nights or something prior to the break then jam more games in after!

No, how about doing away with the stupid break and using the extra days to schedule less back to backs...
i dont even care about the back to backs. The asinine travel schedule is worse. High I am going to play vancouver, then nash then phoenix then florida....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan

SjMilhouse

Registered User
Jul 18, 2012
2,191
2,648
What a dumb time for a break. Let's schedule 8 in 14 nights or something prior to the break then jam more games in after!

No, how about doing away with the stupid break and using the extra days to schedule less back to backs...
I'd rather they just shrink the season down to 74-76 games and keep the break.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one2gamble

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,301
9,174
530
i dont even care about the back to backs. The asinine travel schedule is worse. High I am going to play vancouver, then nash then phoenix then florida....
Both the travel and the b2b's have been a factor. I can understand somewhat on the road, but even our home schedule has seemed to benefit our opponent more than it should.
I'd rather they just shrink the season down to 74-76 games and keep the break.
I enjoy every game, so shortening the schedule I wouldn't be a huge fan of. Perhaps starting the season a week or two earlier and doing away with the break would afford more opportunities for travel days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,391
13,801
Folsom
Both the travel and the b2b's have been a factor. I can understand somewhat on the road, but even our home schedule has seemed to benefit our opponent more than it should.

I enjoy every game, so shortening the schedule I wouldn't be a huge fan of. Perhaps starting the season a week or two earlier and doing away with the break would afford more opportunities for travel days.

I think they should go to a 76 game schedule. For a 32 team league, I think that makes the most sense and is the least complicated. Four divisions of eight, two games against non-divisional opponents and four against divisional opponents.
 

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,301
9,174
530
I think they should go to a 76 game schedule. For a 32 team league, I think that makes the most sense and is the least complicated. Four divisions of eight, two games against non-divisional opponents and four against divisional opponents.
It does make sense, but I can't see the league losing 6 games per team. That's millions in tickets and tv deals.
 

UncMike

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
334
83
It does make sense, but I can't see the league losing 6 games per team. That's millions in tickets and tv deals.
Players contracts are based on 82 games also so they too would be taking a hit.......ain't gonna happen
 

WTFetus

Marlov
Mar 12, 2009
17,904
3,558
San Francisco
It does make sense, but I can't see the league losing 6 games per team. That's millions in tickets and tv deals.
For a similar reason, I dont see the players being willing to not only cut their offseason by 2 weeks, but lose their 1 week break too.

The Sharks' schedule in February is actually pretty good.
 

one2gamble

Registered User
Dec 24, 2007
17,002
7,991
It does make sense, but I can't see the league losing 6 games per team. That's millions in tickets and tv deals.
They added a team, they are still ahead in scope.

They could do this and add another a wild card best of 3 playoff round. Pure money for owners
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,391
13,801
Folsom
Agreed, but the salary cap is driven by revenue so the players would end up taking a hit.

I think maybe comparable to what it would be if it remained an 82 game season but they wouldn't lose money from what they currently make because of it. It would be more than compensated by the addition of Seattle plus the natural revenue growth that has been happening for a while now.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
15,818
5,075
Fewer regular season games the better. The 2013 season had some good hockey as the players were rested.

It will never happen, though.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad