Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Should The Regular Season Be Shortened?


Shortened or not?  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the regular season be shortened or remain the same?

    • Yes, we should shorten the regular season.
      9
    • No, leave the regular season alone!
      11
    • The more than likely unpopular, "Make it longer," choice.
      2


Recommended Posts

Personal preference:

So far into this, the 2008-2009 regular season I am finding myself less and less interested in watching the games. I mean, we still have like 30-some-odd freaking games to go before anything means anything. In my opinion, the regular season should be shortened down to 70-some-odd games. I am don't really have a constructive argument to add to this outside of, "Because I want to," and age old adage that, "Less is more," but would love to hear any and all feedback for or against shortening the season. It truly feels much too long.

B);)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely, I couldn't agree more. I love hockey and all but c'mon ... 82 games plus the off-season is just too much IMO. Shortening the season and thus making teams play each other less often may increase the quality of the game and render each individual game more important. At least we have a more balanced schedule this year without having to play your division rivals 8 times a year. I mean, what's the point except generating revenue? We played 15 (!!) times against Boston last season including the playoffs ... this is ridiculous.

Let's consider soccer for argument's sake. As a general rule, teams in the major European leagues never play against the same opponent more than twice per year - one home game, one away game. All of a sudden, a matchup becomes far more important because it might take up to half a year until you have a chance to go at it again. I'm not saying the NHL should adopt this approach as it would drastically reduce the total number of games per season (and the North American market is fundamentally different with respect to travel times etc.) but let's just say its food for thought.

In a perfect world, I'd say reduce the current NHL schedule by 20 games. 62 games per season means there's still plenty of hockey to watch and discuss.

On the other hand, this may well never happen since we all know what drives this business ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give a suggested new schedulling system then, because that would be the major issue if shortened.

Also the NHL will lose tons of money if they do so, therefore you need a solution for that too.

Dude, do you honestly expect me to come up with a new scheduling system? That would be a ridiculous undertaking.

Also, the N.H.L.s operating costs would be lower, so... I'm not totally convinced it would mean a loss of tons of money. It is possible, a less saturated lengthy regular season could result in more fans, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, do you honestly expect me to come up with a new scheduling system? That would be a ridiculous undertaking.

Also, the N.H.L.s operating costs would be lower, so... I'm not totally convinced it would mean a loss of tons of money. It is possible, a less saturated lengthy regular season could result in more fans, too.

:lol:

That would be a ridiculous undertaking.

Yes it would be lmao.

Wonder how the players would feel less games so pro rate salaries to the number. Wow more cap space lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the N.H.L.s operating costs would be lower, so... I'm not totally convinced it would mean a loss of tons of money. It is possible, a less saturated lengthy regular season could result in more fans, too.

Operating expenses will not be much less. You will obviously save on having to pay people working that night, some travel, etc, but that is pretty insignificant to the lost revenue. Most hockey operating costs are fixed, it doesn't really matter how many games you play: your GM, scouts, and staff get paid the same, you pay roughly the same rent and maintenance on your buildings (arena, practice facilities, etc.), you spend the same on marketing, etc.

Players is the one interesting one: their cost will decrease only because the cap is directly tied to revenue. So, yes the players operating expenses decrease, but for every $1 you save on players you lose $2 in revenue. No owner could possibly see this as a positive. It is neither in the owners or the players best financial interest.

And I don't think you'd get any more fans. The one positive may be that games may get a few more fans in some of the less popular markets since there are less games to pick from, but even this is somewhat doubtful for being significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely, I couldn't agree more. I love hockey and all but c'mon ... 82 games plus the off-season is just too much IMO. Shortening the season and thus making teams play each other less often may increase the quality of the game and render each individual game more important. At least we have a more balanced schedule this year without having to play your division rivals 8 times a year. I mean, what's the point except generating revenue? We played 15 (!!) times against Boston last season including the playoffs ... this is ridiculous.

Let's consider soccer for argument's sake. As a general rule, teams in the major European leagues never play against the same opponent more than twice per year - one home game, one away game. All of a sudden, a matchup becomes far more important because it might take up to half a year until you have a chance to go at it again. I'm not saying the NHL should adopt this approach as it would drastically reduce the total number of games per season (and the North American market is fundamentally different with respect to travel times etc.) but let's just say its food for thought.

In a perfect world, I'd say reduce the current NHL schedule by 20 games. 62 games per season means there's still plenty of hockey to watch and discuss.

On the other hand, this may well never happen since we all know what drives this business ...

Ridiculous? Despite a poor overall from the Habs those games for fantastic fun. I hated this season how they attempted to balance the schedule so every team plays at least one game against each other. I much prefer the rivalry wars between Montreal and Toronto or the Battle of Alberta then Montreal abd Nashville. I will admit I am looking forward to us playing the Sharks however I certainly would not lose sleep if we did not.

Of course money drives business, you sound like you expect more from the NHL and that finances should not be their number one concern. Nonetheless I am admittedly on the fence of "shortening the season" because while it could make games more exciting; although I have my doubts. The hockey fan in my is screaming "That is another month with no hockey!" I can agree that there are times I am less interested in the game simply because I am hockeyed out, so who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous? Despite a poor overall from the Habs those games for fantastic fun. I hated this season how they attempted to balance the schedule so every team plays at least one game against each other. I much prefer the rivalry wars between Montreal and Toronto or the Battle of Alberta then Montreal abd Nashville. I will admit I am looking forward to us playing the Sharks however I certainly would not lose sleep if we did not.

Of course money drives business, you sound like you expect more from the NHL and that finances should not be their number one concern. Nonetheless I am admittedly on the fence of "shortening the season" because while it could make games more exciting; although I have my doubts. The hockey fan in my is screaming "That is another month with no hockey!" I can agree that there are times I am less interested in the game simply because I am hockeyed out, so who knows.

You don't have to agree with me of course but watching 2 teams matching up against each other 15 times a season is not my definition of entertainment. Sure the games against the Bruins or the Maple Leafs are a lot more fun to watch than the Habs playing in Phoenix or LA but what's the point in having to face one opponent 15 times a season while you'll never get to play against certain other teams at all. Admittedly, I'm less interested in watching games against Nashville or whatever but that's what you have to live with when you're expanding to 30 teams. It's a league after all, isn't it? So from my point of view, each team should face each other team at least once per season (just the way it's done now). Otherwise they might as well create the Eastern Hockey League and the Western Hockey League and let the teams handle the rest. Then you could still create some kind of continental playoff series or whatever in order to determine the ultimate winner who takes it all.

I didn't mean to sound like I expect more from the NHL, quite the contrary, I actually expect less - less games. Financial concerns are the foundation of any sports league in this world, the NHL is no different. You're totally right, I as well feel a little "hockeyed out" at times and I don't like that feeling whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Operating expenses will not be much less. You will obviously save on having to pay people working that night, some travel, etc, but that is pretty insignificant to the lost revenue. Most hockey operating costs are fixed, it doesn't really matter how many games you play: your GM, scouts, and staff get paid the same, you pay roughly the same rent and maintenance on your buildings (arena, practice facilities, etc.), you spend the same on marketing, etc.

Players is the one interesting one: their cost will decrease only because the cap is directly tied to revenue. So, yes the players operating expenses decrease, but for every $1 you save on players you lose $2 in revenue. No owner could possibly see this as a positive. It is neither in the owners or the players best financial interest.

And I don't think you'd get any more fans. The one positive may be that games may get a few more fans in some of the less popular markets since there are less games to pick from, but even this is somewhat doubtful for being significant.

I don't know Graeme... ;):D

Your $1 million in saved revenue : $2 million in lost revenue sounds like a formula you just made up without any research into the matter. :lol:

I think, what I like about the idea of reducing the length of the season, is the long-term potential. Too often the league seems to look for quick fixes to its problems. By decreasing the schedule and making the game less saturated it COULD, in the long run, make the NHL a better league.

Also, over time, wouldn't the fixed costs assosicated with building rents, etc. also come down? I mean, perhaps not right away, but after several years it should all start to fall in line, yes?

And what about those managers in the smaller markets who struggle game in/game out? Less games might help them... :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, what I like about the idea of reducing the length of the season, is the long-term potential. Too often the league seems to look for quick fixes to its problems. By decreasing the schedule and making the game less saturated it COULD, in the long run, make the NHL a better league.

i'm not sure what you mean. how could it make the league better? because there would be more demand for games?

i'm also on the fence about your idea...if toronto or boston only played once or max twice a season in montreal the demand for those games might sky rocket or the rivalry might die. what i like about the new schedule is that i now have the opportunity to see all those players/teams in the west that i use to have to wait three years to see but then again if there was less habs hockey perhaps i'd fill the void by following other teams more closely...

as for the players, well if 'the stretch' came earlier perhaps teams (cough*habs*cough) wouldn't be taking mid-season breaks while it's still going on. <_<

someone once said to me that the nhl is the only sport where the regular season doesn't matter. how does it differ from other sports? imho, football is too short and baseball is too long but i don't follow them closely enough to know why that's so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have the same problem in a stable of horses as to trying to get people to come out and see their horses.

now i happen to go every day, but most people come out about once a week. it isn't cheaper to keep the horse because you don't come out, and you don't become a better horseman without seeing your horse. and its better for the horse to be there.

so what does one do?

its all about seminars and trust to me.

i think the season is right to have 82 games- it takes a lot to get through the winter and early spring, and as a pro sport it takes that long to pore over the details of the game. BUT...if the fan doesn't understand the basics of the game, or gets bad advice, or doesn't get his/her fill of a people magazine type of coverage it grinds.

my personal cue--and mind you its only me-- would be to get a concise review of the steps taken by my favorite player to further himself during the season- accomplished through a blog of his, which could be a shared fund between him and the team to keep the "scribe" and i'd just review it and feel more involved.

i'd be really interested to hear what would make the season more interesting for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a 50 game schedule with best of 9 playoffs might make more sense, but whatever, it isn't happening as more games means more money.

If anything they might go from 82 to 86 games or something.

That's the other thing... Is it possible, since many think more games = more money, that the season could be longer? I mean, jeez, I'm already feeling like the season has been dragging on too long. Do we need more games? Well, if it means more revenue, I can totally see it happening downt he road. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a 50 game schedule with best of 9 playoffs might make more sense, but whatever, it isn't happening as more games means more money.

If anything they might go from 82 to 86 games or something.

When the scheduling discussions picked up last year at the GM meetings, serious discussions about expanding it to 84 games were brought up.

I agree on the 9 game playoff series, but make only 4 teams make the playoffs per conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I would like to see a schedule where each NHL club plays against each team in their conference 3 times and each out of conference 2 times. With 30 teams that would be a 72 game schedule. For the playoff format the top 12 teams in the league regardless of the Division or Conference make it to the playoffs; each round being a 7 game series.

12 teams is messy because theres a bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I would like to see a schedule where each NHL club plays against each team in their conference 3 times and each out of conference 2 times. With 30 teams that would be a 72 game schedule. For the playoff format the top 6 teams in each Conference regardless of the Division make it to the playoffs; each round being a 7 game series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Operating expenses will not be much less. You will obviously save on having to pay people working that night, some travel, etc, but that is pretty insignificant to the lost revenue. Most hockey operating costs are fixed, it doesn't really matter how many games you play: your GM, scouts, and staff get paid the same, you pay roughly the same rent and maintenance on your buildings (arena, practice facilities, etc.), you spend the same on marketing, etc.

Players is the one interesting one: their cost will decrease only because the cap is directly tied to revenue. So, yes the players operating expenses decrease, but for every $1 you save on players you lose $2 in revenue. No owner could possibly see this as a positive. It is neither in the owners or the players best financial interest.

And I don't think you'd get any more fans. The one positive may be that games may get a few more fans in some of the less popular markets since there are less games to pick from, but even this is somewhat doubtful for being significant.

Another thing to take in to account when you shave back the amount of games is: The arena workers will feel it...These are people who are relying on hourly wages to get by....not salaries, but hourly wages...And I'm talking hot dog vendors, beer vendors, etc...That takes a huge chunk out of their living expense budget, in a city where living expenses are higher than some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No bye would be required as 1 vs 12, 2 vs 11, 3 vs 10, 4 vs 9, 5 vs 8 and 6 vs 7. However after some thought I amended my original post to a 6 team playoff format in each conference; the winners playing for the Stanley Cup.

You're smarter than that 1970, cmon if theres 12 teams playing in round 1, that means theres 6 teams playing in round 2, which means theres 3 teams playing in round 3.

There must be a bye along the lines somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know Graeme... ;):D

Your $1 million in saved revenue : $2 million in lost revenue sounds like a formula you just made up without any research into the matter. :lol:

Okay you want the exact numbers:

For every $1 you save in player costs, you lose $1.85 in in revenue: so overall net loss of $0.85 (you means the NHL total). There is no magic formula other than the fact that player costs are 54% of league revnue (so 1 / .54 = 1.85)

I think, what I like about the idea of reducing the length of the season, is the long-term potential. Too often the league seems to look for quick fixes to its problems. By decreasing the schedule and making the game less saturated it COULD, in the long run, make the NHL a better league.

In theory, I guess the hockey could be a bit better or people may be a bit more excited about games, but going from 82 to 72 or whatever isn't significant enough to make a big difference. I mean sure if you made it like an NFL schedule, with one game a week, hockey would be amazing. But no way any owners could go for something like this.

Also, over time, wouldn't the fixed costs assosicated with building rents, etc. also come down? I mean, perhaps not right away, but after several years it should all start to fall in line, yes?

Why? If you have a practice facility you are paying a mortgage on and paying all upkeep costs for, no one cares how many games you play. The areans are pretty similar (although in that case the team might save at least something, but not enough).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'M ok with the amount of games being played,then again,this is coming from someone who doesn't indulge in watching basketball,football or baseball.

I'M a big hockey fan,for me can't get enough of it. :lol:

Also,i was in favor of the new schelduling compared to last yrs format.

For me,watching the habs play the leafs ,bruins,buffalo ect. eight times was difinitly too much for me.

Especially,when there's other teams/ star players i was not getting the chance to see,for me the NHL got it right in this instance. :D

GOHABSGOOOOOOOO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the scheduling discussions picked up last year at the GM meetings, serious discussions about expanding it to 84 games were brought up.

I agree on the 9 game playoff series, but make only 4 teams make the playoffs per conference.

You had brought up a losing money earlier when I posed shortening the season, but wouldn't cutting 1/2 the teams out from the post-season affect money earnings even more negatively? I mean, isn't a lot of team (and by extension, the league's) revenue generated in the post-season?

However, I shouldn't be antagonizing. I want to look at this from a fan perspective, personally.

As a fan, what would you want to see, sportsfreak_39?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had brought up a losing money earlier when I posed shortening the season, but wouldn't cutting 1/2 the teams out from the post-season affect money earnings even more negatively? I mean, isn't a lot of team (and by extension, the league's) revenue generated in the post-season?

However, I shouldn't be antagonizing. I want to look at this from a fan perspective, personally.

As a fan, what would you want to see, sportsfreak_39?

The reason they won't cut it is because of revenues, I WANT 4 teams in the playoffs and a shortened season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...