HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Could expansion lead to shorter schedule?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-04-2013, 12:13 PM
  #26
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
So, what I'm getting is that the people posting in this thread are hockey fans who don't want to watch hockey.
If If you can't see how fewer games would result in a better overall product, then I question how much of a hockey fan you are. There's more to being a hockey fan than just sitting in front of the TV and watching it.

By your logic, five Whoppers would be better than one gourmet hamburger, and anyone who takes the gourmet hamburger doesn't like hamburgers at all.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 12:17 PM
  #27
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 7,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
If If you can't see how fewer games would result in a better overall product, then I question how much of a hockey fan you are. There's more to being a hockey fan than just sitting in front of the TV and watching it.

By your logic, five Whoppers would be better than one gourmet hamburger, and anyone who takes the gourmet hamburger doesn't like hamburgers at all.
See, I think there should be bad games where teams are worn out or players are a bit too banged up. That's all a part of a hockey season, trying to get a win when the circumstances aren't ideal.

rojac is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 09:56 AM
  #28
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
So, what I'm getting is that the people posting in this thread are hockey fans who don't want to watch hockey.
What are you even talking about, there are far more games on than can be watched.

Also when you factor in media black outs a large portion of games are being missed in either situation.

HugoSimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 10:15 AM
  #29
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
See, I think there should be bad games where teams are worn out or players are a bit too banged up. That's all a part of a hockey season, trying to get a win when the circumstances aren't ideal.
I'm sure the people who pay to attend those games and the networks who pay to broadcast those games agree with you.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 11:23 AM
  #30
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
If the league is nothing more than the profit-driven monster that some gleefully tout it to be, why isn't the season 100 games? 150 games? Why is there an offseason at all? Let's just play year-round. Yay money!
But it is a profit-driven monster. What else could it be? A nonprofit charity?

An offseason has a number of benefits to a major league sport. Few team sports operate year round. With it's two months of playoffs, the NHL operates for something like 9. It's pretty long.

saskganesh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 02:38 PM
  #31
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymond Flurrie View Post
I'd like to have more info on this. For example were NHL salaries cut when league went from 84 to 82 games?
The schedule was never permanently 84 games. The schedule was set to 84 games one time so that each team could play 2 games in non-NHL areas.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 02:42 PM
  #32
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
I don't think ticket prices would go much higher in your scenario. Teams generally charge as much as they can get away with as it is; having fewer games doesn't have an effect on the amount of disposable income the fans have.
Fewer games does have an impact on ticket supply though. Demand stays static, while substantially reducing the supply creates scarcity, which drives up the cost.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 02:57 PM
  #33
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
The schedule was never permanently 84 games. The schedule was set to 84 games one time so that each team could play 2 games in non-NHL areas.
Actually, the 84 game schedule w/ neutral site games were done for two years - '92-'93 & '93-'94.

It was added in the 1992 CBA, and dropped in the 1995 one.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 04:34 PM
  #34
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 7,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoSimon View Post
What are you even talking about, there are far more games on than can be watched.

Also when you factor in media black outs a large portion of games are being missed in either situation.
I guess if you watch a lot of other teams besides your own, that may be the case. However, I suspect the vast majority of fans primarily watch their own team.

rojac is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 12:01 AM
  #35
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7,087
vCash: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
I guess if you watch a lot of other teams besides your own, that may be the case. However, I suspect the vast majority of fans primarily watch their own team.
It's not really an option for me unless the Jets are on CHEK: Pens games are rarely on CBC or TSN.

DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 12:23 AM
  #36
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
I guess if you watch a lot of other teams besides your own, that may be the case. However, I suspect the vast majority of fans primarily watch their own team.
Even if this happened to be the case, which I doubt it is(among die hards), you`d want to weaken this trend as fast as possible, when your in talks for big national tv deals.

Its obvious that fewer games means far better ratings for television. Each game has more value and importance, and it`s easier for schedule if more eyes are focused on the same games.


The question really is if we went from 82 to to say 60 games, would the increased chance for better television deals combined with better revenue generation through more regular game attendance and greater market scarcity pay off.

HugoSimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 03:44 AM
  #37
tp71
Enjoy every sandwich
 
tp71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,221
vCash: 460
If the league expanded to 32 teams I believe they could do 60 games.

Done in the mind of a two conference split with two divisions of 8 in each.

You play the other conference once: in total 16 games

You play the other division in your conference twice: in total 32 games

You play your own division four times: in total would be 60 games.

--If you scheduled 3 games a week for each team, the season would take 20 weeks or approximately 5 months to complete. Starting in October, you could have the season finished by the end of February, with the playoffs lasting for the two months of March and April. This way the season doesn't begin clashing too much with the MLB schedule.**


I think it would add to the product. I've been in favour of reducing the amount of games for a while. 82 is too much. The regular season games mean too little in my opinion and the season with the playoffs goes on far too long.

I think with this, it would allow a few things:

1. More consistent scheduling: would help fans get a feel for when their team would be playing. They can set aside time to watch and/or attend their team's games easier.
2. Allow for midseason breaks for the All-star game, olympics, world cup.
3. Better quality of games, less injuries.
4. The playoffs could end before May/June.

**Alternatively if you wanted, you could begin the schedule in November (avoiding MLB playoffs) and end the season in March allowing for April and May for playoffs.


Last edited by tp71: 02-08-2013 at 03:49 AM.
tp71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 01:27 AM
  #38
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
So, what I'm getting is that the people posting in this thread are hockey fans who don't want to watch hockey.
I think the real equation is that there are more fans who have LESS time; work, family, video games, internet, etc. I believe people lose their urgency/desire to watch over an 82-game schedule, EVEN ON TV.

BTW, if this ever comes about, the expansion offset argument is BS. The whole hope of making the revenue balance out from shortening the schedule is by increasing the TV revenue... and ratings have been up so far this season, by 11% last I saw.

While I'd like to believe a 58-game schedule (everyone v everyone home and away) has a 50-50 chance of actually increasing TV value to offset ticket revenue, there's clearly less than a 50-50 chance of NHL brass believing it.

PCSPounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 01:37 AM
  #39
Oiled up*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,844
vCash: 500
No because NHL teams needs all the revenue possible to pay for contracts among other things. Unless contracts go down and the cap stays down I do not see how less games played would help.

Oiled up* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 01:46 AM
  #40
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan Godberle View Post
No because NHL teams needs all the revenue possible to pay for contracts among other things. Unless contracts go down and the cap stays down I do not see how less games played would help.
I know a couple people who will argue that the CURRENT TV contracts + sponsorships pay ALL the players and staff before one ticket is sold in the NHL. This is demonstrably true from just TV for NFL, probably for baseball also. NBA might need to throw sponsorships into the mix, but the same is generally true for the NBA. BTW, throw in sponsorships and foreign TV rights and I believe the same could be true of MLS.

PCSPounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 10:51 PM
  #41
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
I think the real equation is that there are more fans who have LESS time; work, family, video games, internet, etc. I believe people lose their urgency/desire to watch over an 82-game schedule, EVEN ON TV.

BTW, if this ever comes about, the expansion offset argument is BS. The whole hope of making the revenue balance out from shortening the schedule is by increasing the TV revenue... and ratings have been up so far this season, by 11% last I saw.

While I'd like to believe a 58-game schedule (everyone v everyone home and away) has a 50-50 chance of actually increasing TV value to offset ticket revenue, there's clearly less than a 50-50 chance of NHL brass believing it.
Yeah well I don`t think anyone is advocating a jump from 82 to 58, but more so an annual decrease of four games a year. until we hit around 60.

HugoSimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 11:52 PM
  #42
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 399
vCash: 500
70 games season was the standard in Original Six era. I would like to see the league reverts back to that amount of games so that the superstars can longevity their career and play the game in the highest level.

coolboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 12:01 AM
  #43
ForsbergForever
Red Rocket
 
ForsbergForever's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolboarder View Post
70 games season was the standard in Original Six era. I would like to see the league reverts back to that amount of games so that the superstars can longevity their career and play the game in the highest level.
I'm interested as to whether you think that reducing the schedule to 70 games would result in higher scoring games, as a teams would be fresher and players would have more time to heal injuries. This assuming that 70 games are played in more or less the same span of time as 82 rather than condensing the timetable.

ForsbergForever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 12:08 AM
  #44
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsbergForever View Post
I'm interested as to whether you think that reducing the schedule to 70 games would result in higher scoring games, as a teams would be fresher and players would have more time to heal injuries. This assuming that 70 games are played in more or less the same span of time as 82 rather than condensing the timetable.
Meh considering most injuries are cumulative due to years of wear and tear, I`d think shortening your season length would do both.

pacing for a longer downtime, and a shorter season in many ways could be better than dragging things out with fewer games.

HugoSimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 02:38 PM
  #45
tony d
Summer Camp
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 42,116
vCash: 500
I think if they do expand to 32 teams, here's how they should do the schedule:

8 games vs. 3 divisional rivals = 24 Games
4 games vs. 12 conference rivals = 48 Games
8 Games vs. Teams in Other Conference = 8 Games

That reduces the season to 80 games.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.