HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Reducing schedule to 72 games? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=74293)

Fletch 04-27-2004 06:29 PM

Reducing schedule to 72 games?
 
just saw this from ESPN:

'Last weekend, The Sports Network, a Canadian cable TV broadcaster, cited sources in reporting that the two sides are "on the same page" in negotiating to reduce the NHL schedule to 72 games, down from the current 82.'

That's the first I've heard of that. [the two sides refers to the players and owners; this was at the end of an article concerning the CBA, with nothing new except Goodenow and Bettman are going to watch the Flyers/Toronto game tomorrow, together, holding hands and stuff].

Shadowtron 04-27-2004 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
just saw this from ESPN:

'Last weekend, The Sports Network, a Canadian cable TV broadcaster, cited sources in reporting that the two sides are "on the same page" in negotiating to reduce the NHL schedule to 72 games, down from the current 82.'

That's the first I've heard of that. [the two sides refers to the players and owners; this was at the end of an article concerning the CBA, with nothing new except Goodenow and Bettman are going to watch the Flyers/Toronto game tomorrow, together, holding hands and stuff].


I say we limit the season to 10 games!!! Keep the players in sensory depravation tanks and feed them nothing but raw wolf meat and gunpowder. Huh? Amazing, right? Then we'll see some full fledged excitement my friends...


:gman:


Seriously though, I don't think the problem is the length of the season. I don't who the NHL would be trying to benefit. Surely it wouldn't hurt. But is it for the fans or the players?

Personally I'd like to see them change two things: 1) Goaltender puck control. I don't like it. If a goalie isn't fair-play, they he shouldn't be allowed out of his crease to dump the puck down the length of the ice during PP's and dump in's.
2) I'd love to see them take away the red line. I think that'll help clear up the neutral zone because the defense will have to spread out more to avoid getting caught with blue line to blue line pass.

Just my opinion of course.

charliemurphy 04-28-2004 12:22 AM

Larger Rink :handclap:

Melrose_Jr. 04-28-2004 08:14 AM

How does taking away 5 home games increase profitability for owners? No chance Bettman would support that idea.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 04-28-2004 09:05 AM

It's good to see they're going right after the big issues. :shakehead

Son of Steinbrenner 04-28-2004 09:09 AM

they should cut interconferance play out.

vbox81 04-28-2004 10:00 AM

Profitability wil be hurt until current contracts expire, true. Immediately, you would hope the players are a little less tired throughout the season.

The question is are these 72 games to be played in the same time period or over the entire 82-game time frame?

Slewfoot 04-28-2004 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
they should cut interconferance play out.


I believe that removing interconference play is part of the proposal. 8 games against each team in your division and 4 against each remaining conference team.

Potted Plant 04-28-2004 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
How does taking away 5 home games increase profitability for owners? No chance Bettman would support that idea.

I think shortening the season will help the NHL by decreasing player salaries in the long run and increasing fan interest in individual games. One of my big complaints about the NHL is that a regular season game just doesn't mean very much. Combine that with the fact that tickets are more expensive than for any other north american team sport, and it's easy to see why attendance is down in a lot of arenas.

The NHL has a LOT of problems. This addresses one of them.

But I'd reduce it to 60 games rather than 72.

Slewfoot 04-28-2004 10:41 AM

The link below was posted on another board:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...73&hubName=nhl

Melrose_Jr. 04-28-2004 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighlyRegardedRookie
I think shortening the season will help the NHL by decreasing player salaries in the long run

I'm not sure how, but it better, because 5 fewer home games at MSG means 91,000 fewer tickets sold per season. Factor in gate draw, consessions, souveniers, etc and you could be looking a $10Mil net loss.

As much as it would suck to see many original 6 match-ups fall by the wayside, the idea of promoting rivalries by eleminating interconference play is intriguing.

n8 04-28-2004 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
I'm not sure how, but it better, because 5 fewer home games at MSG means 91,000 fewer tickets sold per season. Factor in gate draw, consessions, souveniers, etc and you could be looking a $10Mil net loss.

As much as it would suck to see many original 6 match-ups fall by the wayside, the idea of promoting rivalries by eleminating interconference play is intriguing.

(hypothetical numbers) now consider pittsburgh drawing 8,000 per game, 40,000 over 5 for a net of $2M. In the course of 5 games, they just spent $2.5M in player salary, facility operations, personel salary, etc. I'm not saying it's true, but it may be a possible angle afterall, the CBA from Bettman's side will be fought for the Pittsburghs of the league and not the New Yorks and Detroits.

Son of Steinbrenner 04-28-2004 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slewfoot
I believe that removing interconference play is part of the proposal. 8 games against each team in your division and 4 against each remaining conference team.

that would be awesome.

Janerixon 04-28-2004 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n8
(hypothetical numbers) now consider pittsburgh drawing 8,000 per game, 40,000 over 5 for a net of $2M. In the course of 5 games, they just spent $2.5M in player salary, facility operations, personel salary, etc. I'm not saying it's true, but it may be a possible angle afterall, the CBA from Bettman's side will be fought for the Pittsburghs of the league and not the New Yorks and Detroits.

as N8 said small market teams may benefit a good amount from a shortened season by saving money in some areas, while at the same time drawing more interest to the fewer home games, but from a player and owner standpoint eliminating 10 games is better for many teams.

if 10 games are cut out there are 10 games less for a chance of injury before the playoffs, which if you ask a team like the sharks who lost sturm right at the end or a team like the kings who may have made the playoffs if the season ended 10 games earlier would be in favor. less games also mean much more intensity and more meaning to each game, players may feel more pressure during the regular season and more urgency to play hard every nite.

from an owners standpoint, less games means more of a chance to make the playoffs, the race will be much tighter, thats ten points that are no longer available, and instead of teams like the wings or tampa just fighting to finish first overall at the end of the season, with ten less games they may have been fighting just to secure their divisions, it also eliminates alot of meaningless games, such as the ones we saw from the rangers where the only thing that mattered was seeing the kids

along with more interest in home games, it should be harder to get tickets making the demand go back up for games, usually not every fan can go to all 41 home games, leaving seats empty or tickets easily available. now 36 home games, this could just create more sellouts or just more filled seats, especially since the games mean more, allowing owners to lower ticket prices and season tickets because the tickets are A) more in demand
B) the games are more competitive
C) the salary cap saves them some money

there are negatives too, if your players get hurt early and cant come back til later in the season that hurts or what if your team doesnt have a good start or just doesnt click until the end?

personally im all for a shortened season im just not sure if 72 is the right number?

vbox81 04-28-2004 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n8
(hypothetical numbers) now consider pittsburgh drawing 8,000 per game, 40,000 over 5 for a net of $2M. In the course of 5 games, they just spent $2.5M in player salary, facility operations, personel salary, etc. I'm not saying it's true, but it may be a possible angle afterall, the CBA from Bettman's side will be fought for the Pittsburghs of the league and not the New Yorks and Detroits.


Interesting theory, one flaw. Aren't contracts based on time frames, not games played? If I'm right, your idea is moot until current player contracts are finished (or invalidated) and then you have to convince players you are resigning to take less money due to less games. Sounds pretty damn impossible.....

L.I.RangerFan 04-29-2004 06:57 AM

Part of the reason for reducing the schedule and not playing East vs. West games is to reduce travel expenses for the teams. These expense get pretty pricey for the teams out west.

Without interconference play, the farthest west the Rangers would have to travel is Toronto!!! Just think- No more 10:30pm games.

With the Western Conference teams bunched together geographically, their expenses would be greatly reduced also.

Melrose_Jr. 04-29-2004 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janerixon
if 10 games are cut out there are 10 games less for a chance of injury before the playoffs...... less games also mean much more intensity and more meaning to each game, players may feel more pressure during the regular season and more urgency to play hard every nite.

I'd say more intense games increases the chance for injury. More checks will be finished. More shots will be blocked. More fists will be thrown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janerixon
from an owners standpoint, less games means more of a chance to make the playoffs, the race will be much tighter.

Parts of the race will be tighter, but if you're Pittsburgh or Washington (as this years examples), there's a chance you're realistically eliminated before Christmas. Remember, owners are asking for "cost certainty". Under this schedule, if you struggle early, your season is financially lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janerixon
along with more interest in home games, it should be harder to get tickets making the demand go back up for games

More of a result of exclusive conference and divisional play than the shorter schedule.

LIRFan does make a good point about travel expenses, especially for West coast teams. Again, if you're talking about exlusive conference play, the shorter schedule is a moot point.

Sam I Am 04-29-2004 02:37 PM

Fewer games and larger rinks.

Two ideas which will really help hockey but will never, ever happen as they cost money.

Slewfoot 04-29-2004 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam I Am
Fewer games and larger rinks.

Two ideas which will really help hockey but will never, ever happen as they cost money.


I really feel the NHL missed the boat with the larger rink size. There have been numerous new arenas built in the last 10 years that the NHL could have insisted were built with the Olympic size ice surfaces. Getting anyone to change existing arenas probably will never happen.

Janerixon 04-29-2004 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
I'd say more intense games increases the chance for injury. More checks will be finished. More shots will be blocked. More fists will be thrown.

Parts of the race will be tighter, but if you're Pittsburgh or Washington (as this years examples), there's a chance you're realistically eliminated before Christmas. Remember, owners are asking for "cost certainty". Under this schedule, if you struggle early, your season is financially lost.

More of a result of exclusive conference and divisional play than the shorter schedule.

LIRFan does make a good point about travel expenses, especially for West coast teams. Again, if you're talking about exlusive conference play, the shorter schedule is a moot point.

melrose
your points on exclusive conference play is correct and i agree on it. however i cant say the chance of injury is increased if players are playing harder, in actuality i think there is more of a chance of getting injured if you arent playing so hard, if your taking it easy. for example if your team has been eliminated and all you are competing for is pride (and for many thats not much) you may not skate as hard or be fully in the game, making yourself an easier target or just not ready for the hits, while at the same time if you are taking it easy and then start to skate very hard you could easily pull a muscle or over-exert yourself.

the shortened schedule could go either ways with injuries, but i tend to think the players would rather have the ten games less to make the regular season games more meaningful and at the same time be ten less games with a chance of not making the playoffs due to an injury

as for the caps or pens, they were out of it early on, and yes there isnt that much extra ground to be made up, but think of how much more money they were losing with those extra 10 games having to pay arena workers, travel expenses, doctors, etc all to show up and play meaningless games to empty arenas? yes there is a chance you could be eliminated earlier, but if you are you save at the end of the season

zestystrat 04-29-2004 03:47 PM

Great, another reason for Mess to come back next season :banghead:

Hockey_Rules 04-30-2004 04:08 PM

I don't know about anyone here, but I like to see other teams from the west.

LondonFan 04-30-2004 05:11 PM

I agree on one point, about the goalies. If they want to play the puck, they should be fair play for the opposition - outside of the crease of course.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.