View Single Post
01-02-2013, 08:42 AM
Registered User
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,113
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Roll 4 Lines View Post
I'm confused.

The owners would benefit from a shorter schedule, yet they'd benefit from more playoff revenue?

Isn't it the owners who always push for a longer schedule? Isn't the reason the league has grown from 50 game seasons to 82 game seasons because the owners make more money when there are more games?

And, if in fact the owners did want a shorter schedule, wouldn't the players jump at it? Wouldn't they prefer fewer games as long as their salaries remain the same?
Well I don't know why you're quoting 2 different posters as if it's one guy contradicting himself, but if we say for the sake of argument that the short season was orchestrated by the owners as a cost-cutting measure you have to realize that in doing so they have reduced the amount of salary they'll have to pay out (since the players won't get paid for a full season) and they've cut out the least profitable portion of the season where the NHL is competing with Baseball, Football, Basketball, etc. This plan would let non-profitable teams get a break from some of their expenses for the first half of the season and then attempt to come back strong and possibly get into the playoffs where it's almost guaranteed extra revenue (and the players don't get paid extra for the playoffs as far as i know, so operating costs are not drastically increased)

RussellmaniaKW is offline