60 games?

[krisrt4tin 0]

What's your take on the NHL possibly shortening it's season to around 60 games? This would help ensure big name players sign with a team before the season starts so they can attend training camp. I think there's a short article from NHL.com about it.

I don't know, I guess a shortened season would help prevent some injuries which could make for an exciting post season...

[RadioGaGa 162]

What's your take on the NHL possibly shortening it's season to around 60 games? This would help ensure big name players sign with a team before the season starts so they can attend training camp. I think there's a short article from NHL.com about it.

I don't know, I guess a shortened season would help prevent some injuries which could make for an exciting post season...

Each team would also lose the rev from 11 homes games...I don't see THAT going over too well. I could *possibly* see them losing 8G (4H-4A) down to 74, which would basically be 1 home and 1 away against your div...which most people thought there was too much division play anyways.

Maybe cut 1 or 2 preseason games, and start the regular season in the last week of Sept rather than the first week of Oct...the playoffs could start roughly 2 weeks sooner, and the Cup would be raised 10-15 days early than it is now...

But a 60 game season seems way off (without reading the article).

[goalieboy82 0]

i think 74 games would be good amount to play in a season. they can play 60 in years they have the olympics.

[keylei 0]

they can play 60 in years they have the olympics.

That's actually a pretty interesting idea. and it's only once every four years so it wouldn't be too much of an annoyance for fans that don't like the shortened season idea.

[chippa13 1844]

It won't happen, less games means less money for everybody involved.

[kosydar 0]

I see nothing wrong with 82 games. If GMs are worried about their older stars getting hurt, rest them occasionally. Give some guys from the farm a shot.

[Adam91 0]

60 Games for major jr. is a good idea

60 Games for major jr. is a good idea

[Chadd 916]

Once the players agree to give up 20% of their salaries the owners might think about it... for about ten seconds.

[Oberon 0]

And ticket prices would still increase.

[Patrick67 1]

Ha, that's as certain as the coyotes won't lift the cup this upcoming season.

[sjsharks11 0]

i think 74 games would be good amount to play in a season. they can play 60 in years they have the olympics.

fuck that they should keep it at 82 games

[jjtt99 0]

I'm all for fewer games. That way there is less chance that players will take the odd night off. Hockey is much too intense of a sport to support an 82 game + pre season + play off schedule.

From a business side of the equation, hockey generates most revenue from ticket sales. Fewer games means fewer tickets and less team revenue. So, as mentioned, unless everyone is willing to take a pay cut, reducing the number of games is unlikely. Too bad.

[Jason Harris 31]

I've been saying for years that they should cut back to 50 games, although I know it will never happen because of revenues.

A small reason is it keeps it to a winter sport, but the biggest reason is the long season takes a toll on the players' bodies, so a lot of them float through the early part of the season, then turn it on when they realize that are at jeopardy of not making the playoffs. Look at the Avs last year; they turned it on and won around 13 of their last 15 games. However, with a shorter season, the playoff push has to start at game 25 instead of game 60.

I just think a greater percentage of the season would be played with the intensity that makes hockey such a great sport.

[WingsVK97 0]

I've been saying for years that they should cut back to 50 games, although I know it will never happen because of revenues.

A small reason is it keeps it to a winter sport, but the biggest reason is the long season takes a toll on the players' bodies, so a lot of them float through the early part of the season, then turn it on when they realize that are at jeopardy of not making the playoffs. Look at the Avs last year; they turned it on and won around 13 of their last 15 games. However, with a shorter season, the playoff push has to start at game 25 instead of game 60.

I just think a greater percentage of the season would be played with the intensity that makes hockey such a great sport.

I right there with you. Make each game mean more. That why Olympic hockey and playoff hockey is so much fun to watch, each game really means something.

The number of games to drop is up for debate, but I do think 82 is too many.

[Chadd 916]

I right there with you. Make each game mean more.

The current fiasco of a schedule is because the NHL is trying to make each game "mean more". I'm fine with 82 but not the way they do it now. There's no reasonable excuse for playing 82 games and not playing every team at least once per season.

[Jason Harris 31]

While I agree it would be desirable to play every team at least once, I disagree that the current schedule has created a fiasco. I think playing teams multiple times per year leads to "longer memories," which lead to rivalries. Games against rivals tend to be far more passionate and enjoyable to watch.

[precursor 0]

I think Chadd has it right with his point.

But, the "it's hard on their bodies" excuse is BS. Hockey careers often last many years longer than many other pro sports.

[Jason Harris 31]

Maybe the careers are lasting longer because they are holding back during the season.

Put differently, what is the one time of the year when hockey fans universally exclaim that the NHL is the best sport in the world? The playoffs. Why? Because they hit everything that moves and finish every check. It's basically the NFL at 5 MPH to 7 MPH faster.

If even 80% of playoff hitting occurred during the regular season, there's no way the NHL would be a distant fourth in North American team sports. But maybe 40% of playoff hitting occurs during the regular season. Why? Probably the same reason why the NFL only plays once a week -- it's too hard on the body.

[Theo 1]

I right there with you. Make each game mean more.

The current fiasco of a schedule is because the NHL is trying to make each game "mean more". I'm fine with 82 but not the way they do it now. There's no reasonable excuse for playing 82 games and not playing every team at least once per season.

Agreed on both parts.

Maybe the careers are lasting longer because they are holding back during the season.

Put differently, what is the one time of the year when hockey fans universally exclaim that the NHL is the best sport in the world? The playoffs. Why? Because they hit everything that moves and finish every check. It's basically the NFL at 5 MPH to 7 MPH faster.

If even 80% of playoff hitting occurred during the regular season, there's no way the NHL would be a distant fourth in North American team sports. But maybe 40% of playoff hitting occurs during the regular season. Why? Probably the same reason why the NFL only plays once a week -- it's too hard on the body.

Sure, it would still be a second rate sport in the US in terms of viewers. Hitting won't change that or more great playfoff like hockey won't change that either. Americans in general have every chance to watch great playoff hockey on national TV yearly, but they never get hooked. To me the NHL is great from opening night until the last playoff game. Hopefully we all agree with that.

Players will pace themselves regardless, unless the season is really minimal like 40 and under. And even with longer breaks between games, it is not feasible for teams and players to go balls to the wall every game for each game. If that did happen, you would probably see a decline in playoff play, because of injury and fatigue

Lastly, I don't think we should try to cater to fairweather or potential fans to such a large extent. Why punish the hardcores with less games in hopes of catering to new fans?

[Jason Harris 31]

Sure, it would still be a second rate sport in the US in terms of viewers. Hitting won't change that or more great playfoff like hockey won't change that either. Americans in general have every chance to watch great playoff hockey on national TV yearly, but they never get hooked. To me the NHL is great from opening night until the last playoff game. Hopefully we all agree with that.

Players will pace themselves regardless, unless the season is really minimal like 40 and under. And even with longer breaks between games, it is not feasible for teams and players to go balls to the wall every game for each game. If that did happen, you would probably see a decline in playoff play, because of injury and fatigue

Lastly, I don't think we should try to cater to fairweather or potential fans to such a large extent. Why punish the hardcores with less games in hopes of catering to new fans?

I think there are some qualifiers for why viewers had the opportunity to watch the NHL, but chose not to. Mainly, as ESPN's reach expanded into most homes in the late 80's and early 90's, the NHL's game was withering. The NBA and NFL have always tinkered with the rules to improve their product, but it took the lockout before the progressives could convince the purists that their sport/business was dying. I'm confident that hockey from the 70's and 80's would have translated quite well to a sports market that liked collisions and high scoring. Instead, viewers were treated to the trap and games with 25 shots total.

I agree that players will pace themselves regardless, but a shorter season requires a playoff push to happen sooner. There's no doubt teams increase their intensity as they try to secure a spot, so I think there'd be less of the doldrums that occur from mid December to late February.

I take the opposite view from you regarding catering to potential fans. They could be a fortunate byproduct to changing the season's format, but they're actually irrelevant to the discussion. I'm suggesting we shorten the season to reward hardcore fans with a better game.

[chippa13 1844]

A shorter season won't lead to playoff style play in the regular season. The impetus just isn't there to ratchet the intensity up that notch. The reason the playoffs and, for bubble teams, the stretch run have that higher intensity is because the game has become a win or go home situation. Nobody wants to spend all summer remembering the last loss of the year.

If you really want the intensity to build then go back to a divisional playoff format. When teams are facing each other almost every year in a seven game series, that is when the hatred develops, when the rivalries are made. That carries over into the next season. Those regular season games become can't miss games for the fans. That is how it used to be with the B's-Habs and B's-Whale. There was always something brewing from the prior season's playoff matchup that spilled over into the next regular season.