Would the NHL be better off with a 50 or 60 Game Schedule
View Single Post
04-03-2013, 01:39 PM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
I agree, it will never happen. If anything, I think they would be more likely to expand to 86 or 90 games before they reduce the schedule.
ya, that sounds about right. Complete opposite of whats actually good for the game. Really pretty pathetic when you think about it. Absent any kind of decent broadcasting contract for decades they just kept increasing the #'s of games played, building their businesses at the gate, flooding the market with hasty expansion, bumping up the #'s of regular season games, a lack of depth in terms of talent pools, burning out what talent does exist, I mean, just mindblowing. 1917/18 they played 22G's, by the late 20's up into the 30's 48G's. By 1942/43 & during the War years steadying at 50, jumping to 60 in 48/49, then in 49-50 they add another 10 games topping out at 70 where it remained until 1967/68 & the first round of Expansion. Now 82. At minimum 12 too many. The talent cant support it, and as a result, you get both traditional & casual fans tuning out.
Originally Posted by
Just do what I do, don't give the NHL 100% of your attention until after bowl season/Super Bowl. Jumping on 100% in January has been awesome for me in not getting hockey'd out.
Well thats just it. I absolutely love hockey but you know what? I could give a frigg about games pretty much clear on through until the 2nd round of the playoffs. Im a traditionalist old school fan, and simply cant be bothered with watching meaningless games often ending in completely absurd shootouts. Like handing out participation ribbons or something. What in Hell's wrong with a tie if the games played the way it can & should be, full-on & full-out?!. Not impressed with watching hot dog moves, some idiot spiking the puck with the tip of his blade at centre trying to make a fool of a goalie. Just on & on. Mindless...
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Killion