What Happened To The 72 Game Season?

Status
Not open for further replies.

helicecopter

Registered User
Mar 8, 2003
8,242
0
give me higher shots
Visit site
go kim johnsson said:
Despite what people here say, there is no logical reason to cut the schedule by 10 games..
The fact you don't see any logical reasons for that doesn't mean there aren't..
go kim johnsson said:
After a lockout, the last thing the NHL needs is to have their revenue cut by 5 home games.
Just to name one..
one of the first things NHL would need after a lockout is to have a well prepared, promoted and successful Olympic tournament full of NHL stars. (something accomplishable reducing regular season games).
 

Tekneek

Registered User
Nov 28, 2004
4,395
39
helicecopter said:
The fact you don't see any logical reasons for that doesn't mean there aren't..
Just to name one..
one of the first things NHL would need after a lockout is to have a well prepared, promoted and successful Olympic tournament full of NHL stars. (something accomplishable reducing regular season games).

The NHL has survived for a long time without Olympic involvement, and came back from the previous lockout without it. They don't need the Olympics to save the NHL. The Olympics has needed the NHL players to save itself.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
helicecopter said:
one of the first things NHL would need after a lockout is to have a well prepared, promoted and successful Olympic tournament full of NHL stars. (something accomplishable reducing regular season games).

Considering the NHL has played an 82 game season with the Olympics before, I think they could probably do it again.
 

Montrealer

What, me worry?
Dec 12, 2002
3,964
236
Chambly QC
WC Handy said:
Considering the NHL has played an 82 game season with the Olympics before, I think they could probably do it again.

Exactly.

Interesting that MS wrote the excellent point that the players smoking during intermissions in the 70s and spending the summer eating pizza and subs in the 80s had no problem playing 80 games - and now with all the training and conditioning players do they somehow tire out playing... 82 games??

And somehow the Canada Cups and Challenge Series of the 70s and 80s never seemed to cause great grief to any of those players... but now the Olympics is a burden too much to bear for these uber-athletes?

Ridiculous.
 

ColoradoHockeyFan

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
9,368
0
Denver area
Spungo said:
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.
Colorado too... they've sold out every single game since the fall of 1995 (the year they moved here). I fully expect another ticket price increase here anyway... we're used to it at this point. Demand is simply too high to justify anything else.

The difference between the three teams being mentioned here is that Toronto and Colorado continue to sell out in spite of unbelievable, sickeningly high ticket prices. Detroit's ticket prices appear to be MUCH lower, which makes it a lot easier. According to this article, the TOP ticket in Detroit is $85. I'd kill to have their pricing here in Denver. By comparison, $85 won't even get you out of the balcony in Denver (and the top ticket is $224).

http://www.freep.com/sports/redwings/metro8e_20040708.htm
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Montrealer said:
Interesting that MS wrote the excellent point that the players smoking during intermissions in the 70s and spending the summer eating pizza and subs in the 80s had no problem playing 80 games - and now with all the training and conditioning players do they somehow tire out playing... 82 games??

Ridiculous.

Not to mention way easier travel (charters instead of commercial flights), easier road trips (a four game trip where three games are LA, Anaheim, and San Jose vs LA, Vancouver, and Minnesota), easier games (tv time outs now), better nutrition (no sports drinks, power bars in the old days), etc.

This "too tiring now" stuff is a crock.
 

ceber

Registered User
Apr 28, 2003
3,497
0
Wyoming, MN
Tekneek
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.

AFAIK, the official sellout string hasn't ended yet. Not important though.

dunwoody_joe said:
I hate to say this but...I would tell them to raise their ticket prices.

We've already got the 9th spendiest ticket in the NHL according to TMR's fan cost index. The Wild have been one of the most profitable (profits, not revenues) teams over the past few seasons. I'd tell them tough beans, so you don't rake in XX million in pure NHL profits. You lose a tiny bit, because you make up for it with more dates available for concerts (the Xcel is really doing well there), plus you don't bear the cost of the extra games.. insurance, equipment, staff, players. It's a minor loss for teams that are selling out heavily, and probably a decent win for most all other teams. Also, if you add a playoff play-in round there's a chance you make up a couple of games.

Plus, this fan would be thrilled to see a shorter season. Makes my season ticket bill lower, and I usually miss a couple of games anyway. ;)
 

ColoradoHockeyFan

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
9,368
0
Denver area
ceber said:
AFAIK, the official sellout string hasn't ended yet. Not important though.



We've already got the 9th spendiest ticket in the NHL according to TMR's fan cost index.

Just as an aside here, the TMR list is not completely accurate. The average ticket price listed for Colorado is MUCH lower than (approximately HALF of) their actual average ticket price. I am even in the process of addressing this figure with the Avs.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
I would argue that the NFL and NASCAR benefit greatly in their TV deals due to the limited number of games/races. The NFL can get every game televised under national TV contracts. The NHL, NBA and MLB have no chance of that occuring due to their insane number of games. In turn, due to the limited number of games, TV ratings go up, which then allows the rights fees to go way up. On the other hand, a NHL or NBA or MLB national TV contract need to compete with local broadcasts and such, which only hurt ratings.
 

Realm

Registered User
Jun 5, 2005
6,022
125
The Wild have sold out EVERY game in their lifetime, including pre season games and playoffs.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
While a shorter season may help teams with low attendance and low season ticket bases, there are many downsides:

1. Reduced season ticket revenue. If you have 12K+ people willing to commit to an 82 game season, why turn away 10% of that revenue.

2. Luxury Boxes. Many markets will have to renegotiate the price of suites and boxes down.

3. TV Revenues. Do you think Fox Sports Whatever will pay you the same $'s for 10% fewer games.

4. In arena advertising. Do you think sponsors will pay you the same $'s for 10% less exposure.

5. Other revnues. Teams that get significant revenues from concessions and parking would get 10% less revenues.

6. Teams with leases and management company agreements that share revenues may have to renegotiate or compensate the arena owners or management companies for the reduced # of games.

7. Perception. Has any other league ever reduced the length of its schedule (I'll ignore the NHL's 84->82 with neutral site games)?

8. Regular Season Stats and marketing - fewer 50 (or 40 or 30) goal scorers.

9. And the biggest - why in the hell would players go along with this (unless you paid them the same salary for 72 games instead of 82). I can't see the players taking any more of a cut than the expected 24%. And why would the owners pay the players the same $'s for fewer games (and less revenue). And why in a linkage/cap world would the players ever agree to anything that could possibly reduce revenues and hence the cap.
 
Last edited:

Spungo*

Guest
kdb209 said:
While a shorter season may help teams with low attendance and low season ticket bases, there are many downsides:

1. Reduced season ticket revenue. If you have 12K+ people willing to commit to an 82 game season, why turn away 10% of that revenue.

You won't be turning away revenue! Season ticket prices won't be reduced. Why would they? Out of a feeling of fairness to the fan? Not a chance.

kdb209 said:
2. Luxury Boxes. Many markets will have to renegotiate the price of suites and boxes down.

Why? You think people will be so furious at 5 fewer games that they will abandon their luxury boxes? In all the cities we've been talking about, their are years and years long lineups for those things, if anyone leaves there will be a good 20-50 people/companies more than happy to take their place at a higher price.

kdb209 said:
3. TV Revenues. Do you think Fox Sports Whatever will pay you the same $'s for 10% fewer games.

No network on earth has ever broadcast every single NHL game. NBC will only be broadcasting, what, 3 weeks of Saturday games? There is absolutely no change in TV revenue. The NFL only has 8 home games per team and they have the highest TV revenue on the planet.

kdb209 said:
4. In arena advertising. Do you think sponsors will pay you the same $'s for 10% less exposure.

Yes. They pay FAR more for NFL advertising for 8 measly games. You make regular season game more important by reducing their numbers, so the advertising is worth more per game.

I snipped your other argument because they were all very similar to the ones listed above.

kdb209 said:
9. And the biggest - why in the hell would players go along with this (unless you paid them the same salary for 72 games instead of 82). I can't see the players taking any more of a cut than the expected 24%. And why would the owners pay the players the same $'s for fewer games (and less revenue). And why in a linkage/cap world would the players ever agree to anything that could possibly reduce revenues and hence the cap.

It was the *players* who wanted this even more than the owners. You think they enjoy playing 82 games? Bertuzzi wanted to go to 67 games! And players won't have to take a single red cent less in pay because there is no revenue drop.

Do you think revenues would double if the NHL played a 164 game schedule? By this logic, revenues would increase by 100%. It doesn't work that way. Rwevenues are dependant on how popular the NHL is and the NHL is at a near all-time low right now.
 

RockLobster

King in the North
Jul 5, 2003
27,092
7,234
Kansas
Spungo said:
You won't be turning away revenue! Season ticket prices won't be reduced. Why would they? Out of a feeling of fairness to the fan? Not a chance.



Why? You think people will be so furious at 5 fewer games that they will abandon their luxury boxes? In all the cities we've been talking about, their are years and years long lineups for those things, if anyone leaves there will be a good 20-50 people/companies more than happy to take their place at a higher price.



No network on earth has ever broadcast every single NHL game. NBC will only be broadcasting, what, 3 weeks of Saturday games? There is absolutely no change in TV revenue. The NFL only has 8 home games per team and they have the highest TV revenue on the planet.



Yes. They pay FAR more for NFL advertising for 8 measly games. You make regular season game more important by reducing their numbers, so the advertising is worth more per game.

I snipped your other argument because they were all very similar to the ones listed above.



It was the *players* who wanted this even more than the owners. You think they enjoy playing 82 games? Bertuzzi wanted to go to 67 games! And players won't have to take a single red cent less in pay because there is no revenue drop.

Do you think revenues would double if the NHL played a 164 game schedule? By this logic, revenues would increase by 100%. It doesn't work that way. Rwevenues are dependant on how popular the NHL is and the NHL is at a near all-time low right now.

We must stop comparing the NHL to the NFL. First of all, the NFL is the number one sport in America right now, as far as revenues go. The NHL is seemingly behind NASCAR and Poker and just about everything right now, as far as popularity in America goes.

The NHL needs to continue it's 82 game season, at least while we come back from the lockout.

And seriously, what is with the argument over 10 games? As someone has already stated, the NHL has had an 80+ game season for over 40 years, why is it NOW becoming a problem? Answer=IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. Quit making it one.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
You are completely deluded if you think that reducing the season to 72 games would not see revenue drop at all.
 

Spungo*

Guest
Resolute said:
You are completely deluded if you think that reducing the season to 72 games would not see revenue drop at all.

It would see a revenue increase, not a drop. It's not a very difficult concept to grasp.

More rested players = better product = more fans = higher ratings = more demand for tickets and boxes = more revenue. Very simple equation.
 

Montrealer

What, me worry?
Dec 12, 2002
3,964
236
Chambly QC
Spungo said:
It would see a revenue increase, not a drop. It's not a very difficult concept to grasp.

More rested players = better product = more fans = higher ratings = more demand for tickets and boxes = more revenue. Very simple equation.

So you ignore sound, logical arguments regarding "more rested players" to advance your own weaker arguments?
 

Spungo*

Guest
Montrealer said:
So you ignore sound, logical arguments regarding "more rested players" to advance your own weaker arguments?

Ask the players yourself. Throw all your "sound, logical arguments" at actual NHL players who know a lot more than you would about if they think 82 games is too damn long, and they will be happy to tell you what I am.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Spungo said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealer
So you ignore sound, logical arguments regarding "more rested players" to advance your own weaker arguments?
Ask the players yourself. Throw all your "sound, logical arguments" at actual NHL players who know a lot more than you would about if they think 82 games is too damn long, and they will be happy to tell you what I am.

Sure, the players are the best place I would go to get business information on the NHL - they've shown such a fine grasp of league finances through this whole lockout.

Hell of course the players would love to play a shorter schedule (and get the same pay of course). I'd love to get my same pay and work only 30 hrs/wk. Both are about as likely.

Give one solid piece of evidence to back up your claim that revenues would not decrease, but would instead magically increase because of "more rested players".

Unless you can show that teams can generate at least 10% more revenue per game, the shorter season makes no sense. Where is this new revenue going to magically come from?

Tickets? Well unless you can sell an across the board 10% ticket hike, which after a lockout is unlikely. And what makes you think your "better well rested product" will command higher ticket prices? A very large block of tickets sell to corporate accounts who really don't care about the quality of the game - they just want to entertain clients, etc. If teams could get away with a 10% hike in tickets, they would have done so already.

TV? We'll ignore the NBC deal since it's meaningless in terms of revenue. There is no ESPN deal, and if there is a national cable deal (TNT, USA, wherever) it will be negotiated now, when it's a buyers market and will not suddenly generate huge revenues because of the improved ratings of your well rested league. The bulk of the league TV revenues comes from the Canadian Network and US Local Cable deals. Will the CBC suddenly decide to renegotiate and increase its rights fee, no. Will Fox Sports <insert your favorite geography here> increase its payments - No. The league will have to fight hard just to prevent them from negotiating downward. And remember the Fox Sports and the Comcasts of the world get most of their revenue from subscriber fees, not advertising, so any mythical increased ratings of your "well rested" league may not mean squat.

I see you ignored my points about lost revenues from concessions, parking, and other ancilliary per game revenues. Are you going to increase the price of a beer 10% too to break even.
 

ShippinItDaily

Registered User
Apr 28, 2004
1,467
207
Saskatoon
KSGuy2325 said:
We must stop comparing the NHL to the NFL. First of all, the NFL is the number one sport in America right now, as far as revenues go. The NHL is seemingly behind NASCAR and Poker and just about everything right now, as far as popularity in America goes.

The NHL needs to continue it's 82 game season, at least while we come back from the lockout.

And seriously, what is with the argument over 10 games? As someone has already stated, the NHL has had an 80+ game season for over 40 years, why is it NOW becoming a problem? Answer=IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. Quit making it one.


How do you know that it is not a problem. We have never seen the NHL in this modern TV revenue driven era with a 72 game scheduele. You dont know which system is right until you can directly compare them.

Its amazing how many people on here are neglecting that concept that fewer games and more rest equals a better product. Look at football and look at european soccer. They only play once a week, sometimes twice in soccer. The games mean more so they generate more interest or more demand.

I dont get how so many people are so one sided that they are blaming the players for every single thing no matter what the circumstance. Hockey is just behind football for the most physically demanding of what used to be the big 4 sports in North America and some would argue vise versa. Yet they play on average the same amount of games per week as NBA players and 3x as many as NFL players. It is an undeniable grueling scheduele, dont neglect this, its a fact.
 

Montrealer

What, me worry?
Dec 12, 2002
3,964
236
Chambly QC
Spungo said:
Ask the players yourself. Throw all your "sound, logical arguments" at actual NHL players who know a lot more than you would about if they think 82 games is too damn long, and they will be happy to tell you what I am.

Again,

SMOKERS were able to deal with 78 games in the 70s - and they went off and screwed around during the summer instead of train..

Today, our NHL players are supposed to be among the finest athletic specimens in the known world - and yet 82 is too much?

Please explain. Use point form if necessary.
 

ShippinItDaily

Registered User
Apr 28, 2004
1,467
207
Saskatoon
Montrealer said:
Again,

SMOKERS were able to deal with 78 games in the 70s - and they went off and screwed around during the summer instead of train..

Today, our NHL players are supposed to be among the finest athletic specimens in the known world - and yet 82 is too much?

Please explain. Use point form if necessary.


Do you have the Nhl network? If you do you should be able to watch a game from the 70's and a game from the new millenium within the same day. Just watch 2 of those games and try and figure out which one is faster and more physically demanding. If you cant figure it out, I'll give you a hand. THE GAMES NOWADAYS ARE FORE MORE PHYSICALLY DEMANDING THEN THE GAMES 30 YEARS AGO!!!!! Why is this so hard to understand. No player who chain smokes and sports a beer belly can keep pace for a single game in todays sport, never mind an 6 month 82 game regular season plus another grueling 2 months playoff war (if you intend to win the cup).

How you can you not comprehend this??
 

Montrealer

What, me worry?
Dec 12, 2002
3,964
236
Chambly QC
dangler19 said:
Do you have the Nhl network? If you do you should be able to watch a game from the 70's and a game from the new millenium within the same day. Just watch 2 of those games and try and figure out which one is faster and more physically demanding. If you cant figure it out, I'll give you a hand. THE GAMES NOWADAYS ARE FORE MORE PHYSICALLY DEMANDING THEN THE GAMES 30 YEARS AGO!!!!! Why is this so hard to understand. No player who chain smokes and sports a beer belly can keep pace for a single game in todays sport, never mind an 6 month 82 game regular season plus another grueling 2 months playoff war (if you intend to win the cup).

How you can you not comprehend this??

Ok, you're right. The poor players should only play 20 games a year, it's so hard on the poor buggers.
 

Street Hawk

Registered User
Feb 18, 2003
5,348
19
Visit site
Cut the Preseason...

I hope the NHL just doesn't chop 10 games off the schedule without dumping about half the preseason games too.

Right now, teams play 8 preseason, plus 82 regular games, for a total of 90. Granted, your opening roster players only play about 4 of those gams, but still, not necessary to have that many preseason games, especially since teams end up playing like 4 in 6 days. Not much of a chance for guys to practice with their linemates between the games.

So, if they chop 10 games, plus the 4 preseason, then we get down to only 76 games total before the playoffs.
 

Spungo*

Guest
kdb209 said:
Sure, the players are the best place I would go to get business information on the NHL - they've shown such a fine grasp of league finances through this whole lockout.

Hell of course the players would love to play a shorter schedule (and get the same pay of course). I'd love to get my same pay and work only 30 hrs/wk. Both are about as likely.

Give one solid piece of evidence to back up your claim that revenues would not decrease, but would instead magically increase because of "more rested players".

Unless you can show that teams can generate at least 10% more revenue per game, the shorter season makes no sense. Where is this new revenue going to magically come from?

Show me just one single solitary shred of your "sound logical evidence" that 5 fewer home games = 10% less revenue. Please show me this. I would absolutely love to see these calculations you are using.

If shortening the regular season to 72 games improves your product and actually GASP *grows* your fan base and therefore your revenues, why bother doing it, right? Don't be that stupid, man.

If your doctoral thesis of "More Home Games = More Revenue" were even slightly true, then the NHL would be playing 365 games per year and have unlimited revenues. That is just a fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->