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, and NHL revenues.

Would the NHL be better off with a 50 or 60 Game Schedule

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-01-2013, 01:52 PM
  #26
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,138
vCash: 500
I'm Ok with anything from 56 to 84; 50 games would be too few.

As long as they stay with the current Playoff format, which in fact I wouldn't want them to change, then the Regular Season should have at minimum double (56) the maximum number of games (28) a team could play in the Playoffs, or at maximum triple (84) the maximum number of games a team could play in the Playoffs.

Looking at those two extremes,... Perhaps a mid-point of 70 games would be a best-case scenario.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 04-01-2013 at 02:04 PM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:55 PM
  #27
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,097
vCash: 500
Personally I've found myself paying more attention to the season than in years past, and with playoffs coming up-it doesn't feel "too short", but just right for myself.

I wonder if one could even argue the a number of teams might get better attendance with less games to attend. Unfortunately even if you could get all 30 teams sold out night after night, I would think that ticket prices would certainly go up-which might turn people off from the games. That's the only way I could see owners doing it to make up the difference. Also have to take into consideration that the arena staff actually get short shifted because that's less work days for them, which means less $$$.

So I do think that while in an ideal world it could work, realistically and economically just don't think it would work out.

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:30 PM
  #28
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 6,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fancy Pants View Post
So I don't buy this idea that a team can get hot in a 48 game season that would somehow miss the playoffs in a normal season. Would 1 or 2 teams change? Possibly but the vast majority would be the same.
Too many teams over the years have faded after a strong start and not made the playoffs.....

two examples that come to mind recently have been Tornot and the Islanders. If the season was 48 games--they would have made it.

On the flip side there have been teams who did make the playoffs who otherwise would not have.

2 I can remember were Carolina and Pittsburgh in recent time.

If they ever go to 32 teams and thus 8 divisions with 4 teams each. this will likely lead to an expanded playoffs of 24 teams that make it.

If that happens i could see them decreasing to something like 76 games. the 3 home games lost will likely be made up with more ticket sales of a playoff bound team and the higher ticket sale revenue for playoff games.

I also could see in the future and Olympic year trade off of schedule where they decrease to 76 from 82 games in an Olympic year.

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:38 PM
  #29
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 6,259
vCash: 500
In a 32 team league with 4 confences....2 games outside conference (48), 3 against other division(12) and 4 within division(12) =72 games.

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:48 PM
  #30
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
Too many teams over the years have faded after a strong start and not made the playoffs.....

two examples that come to mind recently have been Tornot and the Islanders. If the season was 48 games--they would have made it.

On the flip side there have been teams who did make the playoffs who otherwise would not have.

2 I can remember were Carolina and Pittsburgh in recent time.

If they ever go to 32 teams and thus 8 divisions with 4 teams each. this will likely lead to an expanded playoffs of 24 teams that make it.

If that happens i could see them decreasing to something like 76 games. the 3 home games lost will likely be made up with more ticket sales of a playoff bound team and the higher ticket sale revenue for playoff games.

I also could see in the future and Olympic year trade off of schedule where they decrease to 76 from 82 games in an Olympic year.
I'd agree with Mr. Fancy Pants, though I'd temper it a bit and say that probably about 3/4 of the teams would likely be the same. But that 1/4 that wouldn't could still change the whole outcome of the Playoffs. Hell, just different Standings, thus different matchups, with the same 8 teams in both Conferences could change the outcomes of the Playoffs.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 03:37 PM
  #31
Finnish your Czech
Jermain Defriend
 
Finnish your Czech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Finland
Posts: 44,863
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fancy Pants View Post
What makes 82 special though? Why not 84? Why not 78, 92, 76?

There was a post I saw when the lockout ended that after 48 games last year, you would have had the exact same teams make the playoffs - with the exception of Phoenix.

So I don't buy this idea that a team can get hot in a 48 game season that would somehow miss the playoffs in a normal season. Would 1 or 2 teams change? Possibly but the vast majority would be the same.

It actually would be interesting to do an analysis of all modern day seasons and see which number of games is the minimum that is needed so that 14 or 15 out of the 16 teams are the same teams that end up making it after 82 games.

I don't see it as impossible that the NHL reduces the number of games. They did go to 84 for a couple seasons but reduced it back to 82 so it is possible. I don't see them reducing it drastically but 2 or 4 games wouldn't be out of the question. (I would prefer to see a shorter season).
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1316993

Finnish your Czech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 03:39 PM
  #32
nTsplnk*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 5,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasespace View Post
I like this idea.
Yea, let's ignore rivalries completely. Can't wait to play Dallas every year the same amount of times as Philly

The game is fine. What's with people wanting to change every. little. detail.

nTsplnk* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 03:43 PM
  #33
nTsplnk*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 5,282
vCash: 500
Bold prediction:

NHL reduces season to 60 games that starts in October ends in early May.

HFBoards in offseason: "Ugh this offseason is soo long" "Free agency is so boring this year" "Free agency more boring than years past?" "They never talk about hockey on ESPN" "So and so is better than so and so" "should the nhl [insert stupid rule change here]?" And finally: "They should make the season 82 games."

The format is fine. The game is fine.

nTsplnk* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 04:09 PM
  #34
tsanuri
Registered User
 
tsanuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Grants Pass OR
Country: United States
Posts: 2,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Not really. Do do the math (I have). The NHL redistributes more money with it's wealth transfer system than the NFL does.

For the NHL to redistribute the same amount of money, the average ticket price would have to be around $300-350 (I can't remember exactly, but it's possible it's even higher) and that's with teams splitting 50% of the gate.

That's the numbers now, look at the way things were when the NFL started with it. The league was not doing well. It was long before the days of them being the number 1 sport in America. They started in 1961 with revenue sharing. And it was with all TV rights that they did it. But with the NFL there is no local TV deal and that is the real sticking point.
The biggest issue with the NHL model is all the strings attached to it.

tsanuri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 04:40 PM
  #35
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsanuri View Post
That's the numbers now, look at the way things were when the NFL started with it. The league was not doing well. It was long before the days of them being the number 1 sport in America. They started in 1961 with revenue sharing. And it was with all TV rights that they did it. But with the NFL there is no local TV deal and that is the real sticking point.
The biggest issue with the NHL model is all the strings attached to it.
Those are really the only numbers that matter. The NHL is so gate driven, that splitting the gate doesn't really redistribute a lot of money. I'd fully support them pooling and splitting local TV revenue equally. Thats approximately 450m (15m avg * 30). However the second you do that, you're going to run into issues trying to get the rich teams to fork out cash under the current wealth re-dsitribution system (because you just reduced their cash flow). And because the gates are so in-equal, even splitting the gate won't make up the difference from what they're currently receiving.

Until the national TV revenues (currently ~350m - CND & US deals) increase by several magnitudes, there's not a lot of options that will actually re-distribute the same amount of money as what's currently being transferred.

Hopefully this CBA goes it's full 10 years, and at which point TV revenues (local and national) have increased to the point where a different revenue sharing system can be put in place that's more fair. However I'm not going to hold my breath. But not to diverge to far.

Until the NHL starts getting a lot more TV revenue, they can't even look into reducing the number of games played. But I agree with what others have said, 65-70 games would be about perfect.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."

Last edited by Riptide: 04-01-2013 at 04:45 PM.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 06:16 PM
  #36
Finnish your Czech
Jermain Defriend
 
Finnish your Czech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Finland
Posts: 44,863
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PantherDigest View Post
Bold prediction:

NHL reduces season to 60 games that starts in October ends in early May.

HFBoards in offseason: "Ugh this offseason is soo long" "Free agency is so boring this year" "Free agency more boring than years past?" "They never talk about hockey on ESPN" "So and so is better than so and so" "should the nhl [insert stupid rule change here]?" And finally: "They should make the season 82 games."

The format is fine. The game is fine.
Are you trying to say the fine intellectuals of HF Boards would result to "The grass is greener on the other side"-esque statements!


Finnish your Czech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 11:44 PM
  #37
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 9,014
vCash: 500
No. I like the 82 game schedule much better, and it's not even close.

This shortened season sucks in that there's no intra-conference games.

Intra-conf games should be home/road every year.

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 01:57 AM
  #38
KEEROLE Vatanen
Failures Of Fenwick
 
KEEROLE Vatanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 18,893
vCash: 500
In terms of quality of play, 60 games or so is perfect but for $$$ reasons it'll never happen

KEEROLE Vatanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 08:11 AM
  #39
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Economically, no.

The excitement for me this year is not coming from the fact that every game is more meaningful, but that the games are closer together on the schedule and it feels very division-heavy.

I'll never understand why the NHL feels compelled to have every team play each other at least once. Most out-of-conference games are deadweight. Is there more value-add in having Crosby & Malkin make one-time stops west of the Mississippi during a season than to have more rivalry games on the schedule league-wide?


Last edited by Crease: 04-02-2013 at 08:17 AM.
Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 10:29 AM
  #40
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 31,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Economically, no.

The excitement for me this year is not coming from the fact that every game is more meaningful, but that the games are closer together on the schedule and it feels very division-heavy.

I'll never understand why the NHL feels compelled to have every team play each other at least once. Most out-of-conference games are deadweight. Is there more value-add in having Crosby & Malkin make one-time stops west of the Mississippi during a season than to have more rivalry games on the schedule league-wide?

We older fans like seeing every team in the league. There is little benefit to the NHL in cloistering their best players in niches, especially if those niches also have the highest market penetration for hockey already in place.

The way to address the out-of-conference deadweight games would be to make all games meaningful. Make every point count and dispense with all the subdividing of rankings.

I'm with the poster who said he'd be happy if every team played one home and one away game against everyone else.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 10:31 AM
  #41
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 31,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PantherDigest View Post
Bold prediction:

NHL reduces season to 60 games that starts in October ends in early May.

HFBoards in offseason: "Ugh this offseason is soo long" "Free agency is so boring this year" "Free agency more boring than years past?" "They never talk about hockey on ESPN" "So and so is better than so and so" "should the nhl [insert stupid rule change here]?" And finally: "They should make the season 82 games."

The format is fine. The game is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish your Czech View Post
Are you trying to say the fine intellectuals of HF Boards would result to "The grass is greener on the other side"-esque statements!


Speaking for HFBoards, no, "we" would say no such thing. You're free to poll membership however.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 11:24 AM
  #42
yotesreign
Registered User
 
yotesreign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Goldwater Blvd
Country: United States
Posts: 1,557
vCash: 500
82 games is fine. I would not want a longer off-season, or fewer games in the regular season. I would not want shorter playoff rounds. I wonder though how someone who really enjoys the game of hockey could be wishing for less games, but can totally get how someone who's less interested in it might want less of it.

Like, hot girlfriend calls the boyfriend and asks him if he wants to get together and get intimate (trying to keep it clean) - now if he's not really all that into her, he might respond with "aww geez, AGAIN??? Didn't we just do that like a week ago??? Can't you call me like next month???"

Or maybe the NHL is to these guys like the wife you've been with for 5 years and are already sick of. "There's another game tonight? Oh man, I think I have a headache. Not tonight, sorry."

That could explain where the desire to have less games comes from. A lack of interest.

The NHL should try to develop a little blue pill or something guys could take that would get them up for 4 hours for a hockey game. You know, just for the guys that NEED something extra to get up for tonights game.


yotesreign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 12:01 PM
  #43
Fleury4ever
Registered User
 
Fleury4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,028
vCash: 500
74 games is a number I hope happens some day, it's not a ridiculous cut like 60 games, but would make a significant difference in ending the season before June without altering stats and the overall competition too much.

Fleury4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 04:45 PM
  #44
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
Ain't gonna happen...
  1. TV revenues will also go down with fewer games
Oh really?


Tough Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 04:46 PM
  #45
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleury4ever View Post
74 games is a number I hope happens some day, it's not a ridiculous cut like 60 games, but would make a significant difference in ending the season before June without altering stats and the overall competition too much.
If they shorten the season, they would start it later, not end it sooner. They like the Finals to be in June after the broadcast networks are no longer running original programming.


Last edited by Tough Guy: 04-02-2013 at 06:20 PM.
Tough Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 02:24 AM
  #46
Mr. Fancy Pants
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gifu
Country: Japan
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish your Czech View Post
That's the one! Thanks.

Mr. Fancy Pants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 08:15 AM
  #47
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,824
vCash: 500
I would say yes. It was widely believed that many owners had no interest in getting a deal done and starting the season before Xmas, because they lose money during the first few months of the season. The exact cut-off date, I don't know. But, I would love to see the league start between Nov 15th-ish and Dec 1st and play about 60-70 games. If that means scrapping the idea of playing each team twice, I would be all for it.

As far as the revenues, the drop off would be minimal. Look at this year for evidence. Playing a little more than half the season and still getting about 3/4 of the expected revenues from a full season. Players would likely accept the cut in pay for less games. Since the bulk of the revenues and profits are made after XMas, owners would be all for it. As far as the buildings, owners wouldn't complain as they could fill the buildings with other events.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 11:13 AM
  #48
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 9,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
I would say yes. It was widely believed that many owners had no interest in getting a deal done and starting the season before Xmas, because they lose money during the first few months of the season. The exact cut-off date, I don't know. But, I would love to see the league start between Nov 15th-ish and Dec 1st and play about 60-70 games. If that means scrapping the idea of playing each team twice, I would be all for it.

As far as the revenues, the drop off would be minimal. Look at this year for evidence. Playing a little more than half the season and still getting about 3/4 of the expected revenues from a full season. Players would likely accept the cut in pay for less games. Since the bulk of the revenues and profits are made after XMas, owners would be all for it. As far as the buildings, owners wouldn't complain as they could fill the buildings with other events.
^^^^ surely you can't be serious with anything in your post.

That's just some awesome stuff, right there!

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 11:33 AM
  #49
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Dawg View Post
If they shorten the season, they would start it later, not end it sooner. They like the Finals to be in June after the broadcast networks are no longer running original programming.
Look, thats got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do do with it. The only reason weve got a ridiculous 82 game Regular Season Schedule, meaningless pre-season games and an extended Playoff Format has everything to do with the fact that this has been & continues to be a Gate Driven League. If you think NBC or any of the US based broadcasters are actually happy with the leagues scheduling & over-saturation then I dont know what to tell you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
I would say yes....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
^^^^ surely you can't be serious with anything in your post.That's just some awesome stuff, right there!
Ya, that is some "awesome stuff right there". While I disagree with patnyrnyg's critical thought process pursuant to logistics & timing amongst other issues I do agree with his premise from a conceptual perspective.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 12:52 PM
  #50
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
^^^^ surely you can't be serious with anything in your post.

That's just some awesome stuff, right there!
Actually, it is 100% acurate. Look back at this lockout. People on this site were naive enough to believe that each game canceled would result in a 1/82 reduction in revenues and salaries, and it just wasn't the case.

NBC coverage is Thanksgiving weekend and then kicks up in January.

If they dropped to ~70 games, you would probably see a 5% reduction in revenue. 60 games, might drop revenues 10%. This is assuming the play-offs remain the same with 4 rounds of best of 7's.

And yes, they can fill the building with other events, but again for many owners it doesn't matter as they LOSE money early in the season. I am reffering to the months of October, November, possibly December. NOT talking about the first few months THIS season. Note: I am NOT talking about teams like the Leafs, Habs, Rangers.

patnyrnyg 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 03:58 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.