This Is How To Make The League More Exciting

[JHB]

The games during season do not mean much since so many teams go to the playoffs anyway. There is no difference between finishing first or finishing last above the playoff cutoff.

They should cut out the playoffs. Every team should play against each other four times (twice at home, twice away) in a combined series (no Western/Eastern Conference) for a total of 120 games. To cut down travel times, you play both home/away games against the team a day or two apart, so that you only have to travel to a team's city once during a season.

Then at the end of the 120 games, you either call the winner or you have a "Stanley Cup" best of 7 series between the top 2 teams only to decide the winner.

If done this way, every single game will be like a playoff game. As in, very important.

Click to read more...

 

[1967th Heaven]

Yeah... except for this season when Tampa would clinch it with like 30 games left and then the last quarter of the season would mean nothing

 

[Kcb12345]

Or just make every game 3 on 3

 

[93LEAFS]

Yeah, owners are just going to love the idea of cutting out the most profitable part of the season for them.

 

[JHB]

Yeah... except for this season when Tampa would clinch it with like 30 games left and then the last quarter of the season would mean nothing

You'd have to set something up that'd make it worthwhile to still care about getting a 5th place over an 11th place. Perhaps you'd get some sort of bonus that could be used for next season, based on the current season's final placement in the league.

And if you still have a 2 team Stanley Cup series at the end of it, you'd still care about winning even if one team was far ahead. The second place should still be within reach, at least until there's 10-15 games left.

 

[JHB]

Yeah, owners are just going to love the idea of cutting out the most profitable part of the season for them.

It's profitable because more people are coming paying for tickets. Well, if the games played pre-playoffs actually meant something then I'm sure you'd sell a lot more tickets for the regular season games. So it should even out in the end.

 

[dk2k]

Gladiator pits would make the NHL most exciting, though.

 

[cowboy82nd]

WOW!!!! A 120 game season. That won't fly in the NHL.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

What is the sudden fascination this week with bringing European sports-style ideas to the NHL and inserting them as if the European model is the best possible way to do things without any kind of proof other than "I think, therefore it must be so?"

 

[93LEAFS]

It's profitable because more people are coming paying for tickets. Well, if the games played pre-playoffs actually meant something then I'm sure you'd sell a lot more tickets for the regular season games. So it should even out in the end.

No, they are the most profitable because they aren't paying player salaries.

 

[sinDer]

Terrible idea, for so many reasons

 

[FinnishSniper]

Or...
Just play without the puck and skates

Sorry to say, but this is one of the worst ideas I’ve seen.

 

[Butch 19]

The games during season do not mean much since so many teams go to the playoffs anyway. There is no difference between finishing first or finishing last above the playoff cutoff.

They should cut out the playoffs. Every team should play against each other four times (twice at home, twice away) in a combined series (no Western/Eastern Conference) for a total of 120 games. To cut down travel times, you play both home/away games against the team a day or two apart, so that you only have to travel to a team's city once during a season.

Then at the end of the 120 games, you either call the winner or you have a "Stanley Cup" best of 7 series between the top 2 teams only to decide the winner.

If done this way, every single game will be like a playoff game. As in, very important.

So, 82 games would be a reduction of games in your system...?

 

[Jay haller]

The games during season do not mean much since so many teams go to the playoffs anyway. There is no difference between finishing first or finishing last above the playoff cutoff.

They should cut out the playoffs. Every team should play against each other four times (twice at home, twice away) in a combined series (no Western/Eastern Conference) for a total of 120 games. To cut down travel times, you play both home/away games against the team a day or two apart, so that you only have to travel to a team's city once during a season.

Then at the end of the 120 games, you either call the winner or you have a "Stanley Cup" best of 7 series between the top 2 teams only to decide the winner.

If done this way, every single game will be like a playoff game. As in, very important.

Can we also get relegation? Call sweaters kits too?

 

[tsujimoto74]

(1) Playoffs are fun. People like playoffs. There's a reason no other major sport just calls the regular season champ the champ.
(2) Hockey is a very physically demanding sport. 82 games are a hell of a grind already. At most, the playoffs could bring that number to 110 games for players in the finals. 120 is just insanity.

 

[Jay haller]

What is the sudden fascination this week with bringing European sports-style ideas to the NHL and inserting them as if the European model is the best possible way to do things without any kind of proof other than "I think, therefore it must be so?"

Futball has the best system! Now get me my low-fat nut milk decaf coffee substitute that no gluten!

 

[Ted Hoffman]

No, they are the most profitable because they aren't paying player salaries.

Ish. While it's true that the players are not getting paychecks in the playoffs, some percentage of that revenue [say, about 50% of it] ends up getting counted in HRR which then drives the calculation of the cap which then drives player salaries. For teams that make the playoffs, proportionately less of that revenue goes toward that team's salaries but it's still not anything close to zero. For teams that don't make the playoffs, everyone else's playoff revenues subsequently drive the player costs up for those non-playoff teams.

There's a revenue-sharing offset that also factors in, so again it's not like all teams get 100% of playoff revenues by any stretch. Enough is retained that profit/loss for the year could ultimately be determined, but it's a much more complex equation than a simple "the owners make money in the playoffs because the players aren't getting paid" comment.

 

[93LEAFS]

Ish. While it's true that the players are not getting paychecks in the playoffs, some percentage of that revenue [say, about 50% of it] ends up getting counted in HRR which then drives the calculation of the cap which then drives player salaries. For teams that make the playoffs, proportionately less of that revenue goes toward that team's salaries but it's still not anything close to zero. For teams that don't make the playoffs, everyone else's playoff revenues subsequently drive the player costs up for those non-playoff teams.

There's a revenue-sharing offset that also factors in, so again it's not like all teams get 100% of playoff revenues by any stretch. Enough is retained that profit/loss for the year could ultimately be determined, but it's a much more complex equation than a simple "the owners make money in the playoffs because the players aren't getting paid" comment.

Obviously its more complex (they still pay arena staff, etc), but it is quite easily the most profitable part of the year for teams that make it.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

(2) Hockey is a very physically demanding sport. 82 games are a hell of a grind already. At most, the playoffs could bring that number to 110 games for players in the finals. 120 is just insanity.

This. I think given the choice, the NHLPA wouldn't mind cutting the season back to say 70 games ... if they could collect the same salaries that they currently get for 82 games. Obviously, they wouldn't - and so that's the major sticking point for them not pushing some to decrease the number of games played.

The owners? They $ee a $mall number of rea$on$ for having more game$ and $o ... well, I don't know what one of those might be, but maybe we'll figure it out later on.

 

[JHB]

(1) Playoffs are fun. People like playoffs. There's a reason no other major sport just calls the regular season champ the champ.
(2) Hockey is a very physically demanding sport. 82 games are a hell of a grind already. At most, the playoffs could bring that number to 110 games for players in the finals. 120 is just insanity.

Alright, so you play every team twice instead then, which makes it 62 games in total. Or you cut down the amount of teams to 20, and you'd have 76 games. Put the other 11-12 teams in a 2nd Division and they have a relegation series for the 4 best from 2nd Div and 4 worst from 1st Div.

 

[JHB]

What is the sudden fascination this week with bringing European sports-style ideas to the NHL and inserting them as if the European model is the best possible way to do things without any kind of proof other than "I think, therefore it must be so?"

They still have playoffs in Europe too. At least in the KHL and SHL. But if you're talking about football/soccer, then yes. Soccer used to have playoffs before as well, but they changed their setup because they realized a straight series without playoffs were better. It just is.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

They still have playoffs in Europe too. At least in the KHL and SHL. But if you're talking about football/soccer, then yes. Soccer used to have playoffs before as well, but they changed their setup because they realized a straight series without playoffs were better. It just is.

Who cares what Europe does? This is North America. We have playoffs. We don't have relegation. It works just fine.

In short: you've not explained what's wrong with the NHL to the point that it needs this kind of change. This is yet another solution in search of a problem. It creates so many other problems [players are not doing 120 games without significant damage to the quality of the on-ice product and their physical condition both short-term and long-term; season fatigue for fans; significant difficulty in scheduling arenas for 19 extra guaranteed dates + the added complexity of scheduling to accommodate the ideas you have for when/where teams should play each other] and relies on unproven assumptions like "every game will be like a playoff game" [which, might I add, was long the argument for not having a college football playoff - which was only really true for certain teams in certain conferences, almost exclusively the stronger teams in the non-Power 5 conferences] that the whole idea just falls woefully short.

Here's a counter-idea: don't change anything.

 

[deepelemblues]

Awful idea.

Football in Europe is worse since they got rid of the playoffs. Individual games aren't more important, everything runs together now. There's no distinction for an individual game at all unless it's at the end of the season and the two teams playing need to win to maintain their spot or move up in the rankings, or avoid relegation. Win or you're done. Kinda like... playoffs HMMM.

The idea that there's no difference between being top seed and lowest seed is so wrong too. The greater parity makes it seem like seeding doesn't matter but that's wrong. No team wants game seven away or 3 of the first 5 games in the series away, they want those games at home.

 

[DrewGl]

I thought teams playing duck duck goose after winning a game was already making the league more exciting..

 

[ZDH]

The best thing the NHL could would be bringing back the old 1seed vs 8seed playoff format.

I honestly believe that would make things way more entertaining.