If $ wasn't an issue: The right length for the regular season

[LGB51]

82 games. It get's intense enough in the playoffs, I don't need more regular season intensity. Plus I don't want less hockey.

This, basically. If anything has to change about the regular season, (if money was no problem) I'd still want more hockey, not less.

 

[Banana Sandwiches]

Somewhere in the 40-50 game range mark would be great. The season right now is too long. After October, I start getting a little bored (sans rivalry games) until around mid March when the playoff picture starts shaping up and you can actually see how valuable the points are.

 

[glovesave_35]

I'm not judging, but I'm curious the ages of posters who wish the season length would go the various directions. When I was 16-22'ish I could watch every Stars game with little problem. Now at 28-29 I try to watch as many as I can but there just isn't the time to watch every one without it feeling like I'm cramming it into my day sometimes.

 

[Dave is a killer]

I'm 37 and I watch every Predators game possible

 

[LGB51]

I'm 37 and I watch every Predators game possible

Same only with the Blues.

 

[SladeWilson23]

28 games against your division: 7 x 4 = 28
44 games against the rest of the league: 2 x 22 = 44
72 total games: 28 + 44 = 72

I wouldn't mind seeing that if we HAD to reduce the number of games. However, I don't think we do, and think the current system is perfectly fine.

 

[sharski]

reduce # of regular season games down to 70
increase # of playoff rounds to 5
???
profit

 

[DVon Du Nord]

Retract to 28 teams.

4 divisions of 7 teams.

2 home/2 away vs. each divisional team = 24 games
1 home/1 away vs. every other team = 28 games
Total games = 52 games.

3 points for Reg/OT win
2 points for SO win
1 point for SO loss
0 points for Reg/OT loss.

Division winner clinches top-2 seed, top 8 in conference in playoffs.

No more back-to-back games.

Season runs from early October-mid March. Playoff done in May.

This point system is something I've been saying for a while (not on HF albeit) and I completely agree with you on that. As for the season however, I think it's fine the way it is.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Our present schedule is perfect.

Playing too little you lose your momentum and playing too much you get burnt..

If fans enjoy rivalries and outerconference play (especially amongst the O6) then we need 82 games.

Remember - as it is with the playoffs a team could play 100+ games in a season.

 

[Juzmo]

I feel the same.

Ditto. He made a good point.

 

[odin1981]

28 games against your division: 7 x 4 = 28
44 games against the rest of the league: 2 x 22 = 44
72 total games: 28 + 44 = 72

I wouldn't mind seeing that if we HAD to reduce the number of games. However, I don't think we do, and think the current system is perfectly fine.

+1 to this. You did more work in figuring it out than I did. But this would be a great setup.

 

[SladeWilson23]

+1 to this. You did more work in figuring it out than I did. But this would be a great setup.

Of course a minor tweak would be in order if the league expands to 32 teams in the west. 4 divisions with 8 teams in each division.

4 games against each division opponent: 28 games vs 7 teams
2 games against each of the remaining teams: 48 games vs 24 teams
76 total games

76 is still a good number of games.

 

[CBCnutcase]

The 48-game lockout season was really nice.

Which one, the 1995 or 2013 season? I thought they both sucked, they were too short.

 

[Larrybiv]

82 games. Leave it the way it is.

I'm totally okay with how many games are played. 70 would be better for players, 90 would be better for fans like me. The more, the better.

If I had a wish to change scheduling in any way.....it would be a team playing every third day. No back to backs, no every other day. Teams need time to travel, rest and practice. To get into a routine. Then there would be no unfair advantage when one team is rested and another playing 3 in 4 nights.

 

[Larrybiv]

The 48-game lockout season was really nice.

It was nice because it seemed your team played every other night, otherwise it just FLEW by. Horrific. But, at the time, I was thrilled to have any hockey at all, when it seemed there wasn't going to be.

 

[sourdough]

Of course a minor tweak would be in order if the league expands to 32 teams in the west. 4 divisions with 8 teams in each division.

4 games against each division opponent: 28 games vs 7 teams
2 games against each of the remaining teams: 48 games vs 24 teams
76 total games

76 is still a good number of games.

I like this with the season starting a couple weeks earlier. June is way too late for the playoffs to end. After a long winter hockey seems a lot less important when it 30 degrees celcius outside.

 

[Car2014]

lets pretend for a second that both conferences are 15 teams with 6 divisions of 5 (i preferred this way) so its easier to do:

15 games against the other conference (1 game each)
20 games against the other same conference divisions (2 games each)
20 games against your own division (4 games each)
55 games

this new stupid format makes things so unorganized and random.

I prefer this or either the once against each team at home and away model you have in many European competitions, but that would make conferences and divisions rather pointless.

I agree that playing less often (also against each other) increases the importance. I really prefer the 1-2 games a week you have in soccer, rugby, American football. I do wonder if that also has helped them become as popular as they are?

It also makes it easier to follow teams other than your own or keep up with the league overall. I really wanted to get into hockey (again) earlier, but with the high amount of games, it's difficult to follow, especially if you also have other things to do.

Having a winter sport end in summer also makes no sense to anyone who isn't used to it.

I'd also like it if the World Championships were more important.

I liked it when the NBA still had best of 5 for the first round.

 

[Spinkis]

each team play each other two times, one home and one away. And the 3 point system.

 

[cptjeff]

I'm not judging, but I'm curious the ages of posters who wish the season length would go the various directions. When I was 16-22'ish I could watch every Stars game with little problem. Now at 28-29 I try to watch as many as I can but there just isn't the time to watch every one without it feeling like I'm cramming it into my day sometimes.

So don't. You're not obligated to watch every game. I don't, but more games means you have more options as to when you watch. Fewer games would make it harder for people with other stuff going on in their lives, not easier. For example, I barely ever watch NFL games these days, because I usually have stuff to do on Sunday. I might want to watch a game on occasion, but I don't schedule my life around football, as much as the NFL might want me to. They provide the barest attempts at providing other times for people to watch, but usually the team I care about isn't in those games. So I don't watch much NFL anything.

I know I'm not going to see every Canes game. But the more games there are, the more I'll get to watch.

 

[passive voice]

[Assuming we're not breaking up the awful monopoly that is North American pro sports]

76 games.

32 Teams in four divisions.
2x home-and-away in the division = 28 games
1x home-and-away outta division = 48 games

Start October 1st, maybe even late September. 3 games/week wraps the regular season in late March. Gotta get the cup handed out before Memorial Day.