What Happened To The 72 Game Season?

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Spungo*, Jun 9, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Spungo*

    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?
     
  2. Canucks Fan

    Canucks Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  3. Spungo*

    Spungo* Guest

    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).
     
  4. MS

    MS 1%er

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    25,484
    Likes Received:
    5,422
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    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%.
     
  5. Spungo*

    Spungo* Guest

    Why not have a 365 game season then and play all year long?

    Reducing your home games by 3 or 5 isn't going to reduce revenue by a single cent and will actually increase revenue substantially. It's all supply and demand. Right now, there is too much supply and not enough demand for NHL games.

    This is something the owners *want*. They realise that the regular season is WAY too damn long right now and that players can't sustain 82 games without playing like dogs for at least 10 of those games and getting injured left and right.

    Less games = less tired players = better hockey.

    The fewer tuesday and wednesday games that nobodye even goes to in places like Atalanta and Carolina, the better. The owners want sold out buildings, not 5,000 people going to some wednesday game vs. the florida panthers. The owners want to get rid of those games. They realise it makes economic sense to limit supply.
     
  6. helicecopter

    helicecopter Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    8,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    give me higher shots
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  7. Tekneek

    Tekneek Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    4,326
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    96
    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?
     
  8. Tekneek

    Tekneek Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    4,326
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Also, haven't they been playing more than 72 games a season for almost 40 years? Why is it only becoming a big problem now?
     
  9. dunwoody_joe

    dunwoody_joe Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    atlanta
    Home Page:
    Maybe.

    If the band plays 20 dates to full houses of 20,000 paying $75/show (total: $30 M) versus 30 dates to 3/4 full houses of 15,000 paying $50/show (total: $22.5M).

    Let's remember that the NFL only plays 16. It really is about supply and demand and right now there is plenty of supply (NHL games) and not so much demand. NHL would do well to stimulate demand.
     
  10. Spungo*

    Spungo* Guest

    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.
     
  11. MS

    MS 1%er

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    25,484
    Likes Received:
    5,422
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    The league has been playing an ~80 game season for almost 40 years. None of these things were ever a problem before.

    As was already mentioned, poorly conditioned players back in the 1970s had no trouble playing 80 games/year. It was never any trouble in the high-flying 1980s, either. Now the best conditioned hockey players ever are too tired from it? Yeah, right.

    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.
     
  12. Tekneek

    Tekneek Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    4,326
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    96
    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.
     
  13. MS

    MS 1%er

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    25,484
    Likes Received:
    5,422
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    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.
     
  14. dunwoody_joe

    dunwoody_joe Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    atlanta
    Home Page:
    I hate to say this but...I would tell them to raise their ticket prices.
     
  15. Spungo*

    Spungo* Guest

    That's true. Same thing for Toronto too as I think they have about 10 years worth of sellouts. Detroit sells out every game too. The solution for those teams would be to increase ticket prices by 7% to make up for a reduction of 3 home games. I think an extra 7% (only in cities that sell-out every home game) is worth it to see better hockey that ends in May. Just my opinion though.
     
  16. Spungo*

    Spungo* Guest

    25 of 30 NHL teams sell out every night? Not even close, man. I can name you 10 right off the top of my head that have serious attendance problems.

    For the teams that do sell out every night, just raise ticket prices by 7% (a $50.00 ticket becomes a $53.50 ticket). Most NHL cities won't have that problem though.
     
  17. RockLobster

    RockLobster King in the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    25,648
    Likes Received:
    3,518
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Occupation:
    Education
    Location:
    Kansas

    I hate to say it, but even your analogy isn't very good...while the numbers and the mathematics may "add up"

    There is just one important thing that EVERYONE is overlooking. The NHL is not a band. If I go to a home Colorado Avalanche game, and say they're playing the Pittsburgh Penguins. Well, I'm not only seeing the Superstars of the Avalanche (Sakic, Forsberg, Blake and Co.) but I'm also seeing one of the greatest players of the game (Mario) and potentially a phenom rookie (Malkin)....Part of seeing sports games is watching the stars from the other team (whether you want to admit it or not)
     
  18. helicecopter

    helicecopter Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    8,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    give me higher shots
    Home Page:
    So what? NHL has always used red line off-side and still it's arguing about getting rid of it..

    But there are problems now..
    injuries..worse product on the ice..lack of working offensive systems..doping tolerance..PRO players having the right to take part at the Olympics..


    Agree.

    Agree.
     
  19. Spungo*

    Spungo* Guest

    All very good points. Start the season on October 1 and end the finals on May 31 at the VERY latest. Nobody wants to watch hockey in June.
     
  20. Tekneek

    Tekneek Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    4,326
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    96
    I'll watch hockey in June.
     
  21. Drake1588

    Drake1588 UNATCO

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    28,419
    Likes Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    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.
     
  22. Spungo*

    Spungo* Guest

    So I guess there will be a 62 game season next year then? Seeing as how the players gave back 24% of their salaries and all.
     
  23. Drake1588

    Drake1588 UNATCO

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    28,419
    Likes Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    In their infinite charity, the owners wanted an extra rollback in exchange for fewer games. The players were supposed to take the 24% rollback just to get to an acceptable, 82-game level. They were then supposed to be willing to accept further reductions for a shorter season. That's the only way the owners would consider it. So it died.
     
  24. Boltsfan2029

    Boltsfan2029 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Paralegal
    Location:
    In deleted threads
    We didn't mind it in 2004... :)

    I'm for starting the season earlier. Say mid-September instead of October -- Cup finals over in May.
     
  25. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    140,664
    Likes Received:
    2,552
    Trophy Points:
    232

    It was never a slam dunk.



    Despite what people here say, there is no logical reason to cut the schedule by 10 games. After a lockout, the last thing the NHL needs is to have their revenue cut by 5 home games.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"