Season Length Part of New CBA?

[Crazy Lunatic]

Anyone hear anything about the league changing its season length to 72 games? There was tons of talk about this for about 2 solid weeks just after the finals ended. Haven't heard anything about it since.

Click to read more...

 

[GKJ]

I am in the minority here, but I don't think this is a good idea. It's bad enough the NHL doesn't have enough exposure, now people want to reduce the amount of games. I understand why people think there should be less games, and I don't disagree with that, but my issue is the revenue lost with 5 less home games. I know it's only 5 but for big hockey markets 5 less games hurts. Sure you spend less on players, and other expendatures, but you make less as well.


I also have an addiction to watching the sport. I tend to think outside the box and wouldn't be opposed to seeing more games in a season. That's just me.

 

[Scoogs]

Although it would be less beloved hockey for me to watch, I would still do it. An 82 game sched takes a large toll on the players. And players are more susceptible to injury.

Cut the sched to 72 games, have the playoffs played earlier. And for God sakes move the trade deadline back.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Haven't we learned from this lockout it's all about the money??

10 less games equals less revenue for the parties to split.

 

[pei fan]

I think at the time it was being discussed a number of management came out
against the idea.

 

[GKJ]

Although it would be less beloved hockey for me to watch, I would still do it. An 82 game sched takes a large toll on the players. And players are more susceptible to injury.

Cut the sched to 72 games, have the playoffs played earlier. And for God sakes move the trade deadline back.

You mean up, make it earlier. I agree with this. An earlier trade deadline will mean less teams are out of the hunt, and thus they won't be as hasty to make salary dumps. That or other teams will ridiculously overpay.


If you want less tired players, you can keep an 82 game season, just give back the 3 weeks the NHL took away when they condensed the schedule.

 

[Scoogs]

Back, up, same thing.

 

[SENSible1*]

Unfortunately, this won't be under discussion. Both sides are too greedy for their own good.

 

[Flukeshot]

Haven't we learned from this lockout it's all about the money??

10 less games equals less revenue for the parties to split.

I don't know if it would necessarily mean be a great loss of revenue. From what I remember quite a few players were in favour of it. They mostly agreed with the season being too long and hard on the players. The markets that sell out every game would likely be losing money yes same goes for the ones with a high number of season ticket holders. But most places don't sellout every night. With 5 less home games the hope is that those people simply go to other games.

Take away player costs, facility costs and a whole slew of other details that my limited accountant/financially mind is unaware of and it may not be too far off. At least it may be small enough a loss of revenue to trade for healthier players and better scheduling.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I don't know if it would necessarily mean be a great loss of revenue. From what I remember quite a few players were in favour of it. They mostly agreed with the season being too long and hard on the players. The markets that sell out every game would likely be losing money yes same goes for the ones with a high number of season ticket holders. But most places don't sellout every night. With 5 less home games the hope is that those people simply go to other games.

Take away player costs, facility costs and a whole slew of other details that my limited accountant/financially mind is unaware of and it may not be too far off. At least it may be small enough a loss of revenue to trade for healthier players and better scheduling.

I dont know, 6.5% less ticket revenue per team (5 homes game each) can add up. Money matters most to both sides so i cant see these guys giving away money.

 

[Crows*]

10 less games= better regular season. Less injuries, better playoffs.

BRING IT ON.

 

[Munchausen]

I also have an addiction to watching the sport. I tend to think outside the box and wouldn't be opposed to seeing more games in a season. That's just me.

There is just so much a human body can take. Those guys aren't machines. The more they play, the less they have time to recuperate, and the more likely they are to come out flat the next game. That might especially be problematic for players that play the PF game or smaller ones that take a lot of physical abuse. It's also a good way to keep the motivation high, by not burning anybody mentally.

I've also heard coaches say they would really like it. It would give them an opportunity to teach those guys and develop strategies in practices. They don't have much time for that when you play every 2 days.

I'm all up for a 72 game schedule as long as they can find a way to make it financially viable. This is a direct solution for making the game better (quality over quantity).

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

Reduce the number of pre-season games to 2 or 3.

I don't think they need 9-10 pre-season games.

 

[Scoogs]

Reduce the number of pre-season games to 2 or 3.

Do you mean for just the 04/05 season if there is a deal? Or do you mean regularly? Pre-season helps teams get to know eachother, helps with line chemistry, and whips them back into shape. So cutting them wouldnt be too nice.

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

Do you mean for just the 04/05 season if there is a deal? Or do you mean regularly? Pre-season helps teams get to know each other, helps with line chemistry, and whips them back into shape. So cutting them wouldnt be too nice.

I meant regularly.

It seems to me that most players these days stay in shape through the summer.

I wonder what the players think about the number of pre-season games?

If I were a player (I used to play in amateur leagues) I would think of pre-season games as a colassal waste of time and energy. There are plenty of games in the season to develop chemistry.

Plus, pre-season games don't bring in much revenue, and that is all that really matters to them anyway.

 

[Sam I Am]

Although it would be less beloved hockey for me to watch, I would still do it. An 82 game sched takes a large toll on the players. And players are more susceptible to injury.

Cut the sched to 72 games, have the playoffs played earlier. And for God sakes move the trade deadline back.

Hockey is not meant to be played in June.

72 game sked. Cut the number of exhibition games by half. Start the season two weeks earlier. And finish it by the first week of May.

And by all means, move the trade deadline back !!!

 

[PecaFan]

If you want less tired players, you can keep an 82 game season, just give back the 3 weeks the NHL took away when they condensed the schedule.

What? There is no "3 weeks the NHL took away".

For thirty years the NHL season has begun in early October, and the playoffs have begun in early April.

The season is *easier* to play now, not harder. Lighter equipment, better travel, way easier road trips (A five game road trip now does things like LA, ANA, SJ, PHX, DAL, whereas back then a five game trip was VAN, LA, STL, DET, NYR)

 

[kdb209]

I meant regularly.

It seems to me that most players these days stay in shape through the summer.

I wonder what the players think about the number of pre-season games?

If I were a player (I used to play in amateur leagues) I would think of pre-season games as a colassal waste of time and energy. There are plenty of games in the season to develop chemistry.

Plus, pre-season games don't bring in much revenue, and that is all that really matters to them anyway.

Pre-Season games do bring in revenue (and lots of it). Season ticket holders are generally forced to buy tickets to the preseason games (whether they want to or not) at or near the price for a regular season game. And they get all there usual cuts of concessions, parking, etc. And the best thing about it is - they don't have to pay the players anything (just like the playoffs).

 

[Phanuthier*]

Both sides are too greedy for their own good.

The NHLPA wants this, but the NHL won't.

While there is less revenue coming in for a 72 game saeson (tickets, TV revenue ect) the owners still have to pay the same building taxesa, maintainance ect.

If everyone's so concerned about long seasons, why not just cut down on the pre-season? It was there to get players in shape; now, with the pro-athlete's offseason training, everyone (save a 1-2 fattys) comes into camp in shape and roaring to go.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The NHLPA wants this, but the NHL won't.

While there is less revenue coming in for a 72 game saeson (tickets, TV revenue ect) the owners still have to pay the same building taxesa, maintainance ect.

If everyone's so concerned about long seasons, why not just cut down on the pre-season? It was there to get players in shape; now, with the pro-athlete's offseason training, everyone (save a 1-2 fattys) comes into camp in shape and roaring to go.

I actually think the NHL would be for this as well.

The regular season is the where they make the least of their moeny in terms of a percentage.

Pre & post season is where they rake in the $$$$$.

I don't see them dropping to 72 games, but I could see a cut down to 76.

 

[Phanuthier*]

I actually think the NHL would be for this as well.

The regular season is the where they make the least of their moeny in terms of a percentage.

Pre & post season is where they rake in the $$$$$.

I don't see them dropping to 72 games, but I could see a cut down to 76.

??? Cutting down the regular season doesn't change the number of playoff games.

As for pre-season... I can't see them making much there. No TV revenues, half the attendence, but the same cost for putting on a show. The only thing is that they don't have to pay the performers.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

The NHLPA wants this, but the NHL won't.

While there is less revenue coming in for a 72 game saeson (tickets, TV revenue ect) the owners still have to pay the same building taxesa, maintainance ect.

If everyone's so concerned about long seasons, why not just cut down on the pre-season? It was there to get players in shape; now, with the pro-athlete's offseason training, everyone (save a 1-2 fattys) comes into camp in shape and roaring to go.

How does that make the season shorter? You want them to start in September? The whole NHL year should start in October and finish by May.31 (preferable before). Thats 8 months! Fans need some time away from the game to appreciate when it comes back. The NFL only plays 6 months and look at all the hype that comes when the season starts up, people are actually excited about footbal after being away from it for 6 months. For the last 10 years of hockey it's been "geez, hockey is back already?" Not exactly the kind of attitude you want your fans to have.

Fewer games will only mean less money for teams that sell out every single night. And there are only a handfull of those teams. Most teams find it hard as hell to sell tickets to monday- thursday games and would be happy to get rid of 5 mid-week games to benefit the attendance of the friday, saturday and sunday games. Just as an example, imagine if the league had a 12 game season. Every team would probably sell out for the entire season. If you only have 6 chances to see an NHL game all year, NHL games become a hot ticket. With 41 chances a year (plus playoffs and exhibition) NHL tickets are anything but a "hot ticket".