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, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

56-game season to start circa 12/20?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-05-2012, 12:46 PM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 58,527
vCash: 500
56-game season to start circa 12/20?

PollakOnSharks 10:39am via web One scenario RT @garylawless if deal gets done by weekend, big if, training camps could open wednesday and 56-game season would begin 12/20.




Definitely a big if.


56 games = 16 vs division (4xeach) + 40 vs conference (4xeach)?

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 12:49 PM
  #2
Bosswally
Registered User
 
Bosswally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 407
vCash: 500
nick kypreos said that hes heard that coaches are calling players saying get ready boys

Bosswally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 12:51 PM
  #3
M A K A V E L I*
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: van Coevorden
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Having the same # of games against divisional and conference opponents would make the divisions useless.

There needs to be 6 games against the divisional teams, 3 for the rest of the conference and the remaining extra games can be done randomly or based on rivalries in the conference.

M A K A V E L I* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 12:55 PM
  #4
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,386
vCash: 500
They need to play at least 61 games so they don't have to partially refund the sponsors, so look for a 62-game season instead.

Slashers98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:04 PM
  #5
Melnyks Mirage
We're doomed.
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cumberland
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,544
vCash: 50
Ehhh probably need a couple weeks to get the rust off right?
So 50 games maybe, with 16 OOC (Out of Conference) and 34 IC (In Conference)?

Either way it's pretty here in Ottawa with the 67s struggling, so let's get hockey back ASAP!

Melnyks Mirage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:09 PM
  #6
wpgJetsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,134
vCash: 500
I don't want to the season to start. I'd say start next year. Too much time has been lost and I would hate to see a team like the Islanders make the playoofs or even Edmonton when in a full season they wouldn't. Heck how would you feel if a team like Columbus won the CUP?

wpgJetsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:11 PM
  #7
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
I don't want to the season to start. I'd say start next year. Too much time has been lost and I would hate to see a team like the Islanders make the playoofs or even Edmonton when in a full season they wouldn't. Heck how would you feel if a team like Columbus won the CUP?
A shortened Season would more likely be to the advantage of a talented team, but a team that wouldn't run out of gas as they might in an 82-game Season.

Hell, if Columbus won the Cup, that would be Great!

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:12 PM
  #8
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
I don't want to the season to start. I'd say start next year. Too much time has been lost and I would hate to see a team like the Islanders make the playoofs or even Edmonton when in a full season they wouldn't. Heck how would you feel if a team like Columbus won the CUP?
...really?

I personally couldn't care less if the season started too, but not for any of the reasons you listed. Your post is akin to "Heck, how would you feel if a #8 seed won the Stanley Cup?!?!?!?!"

So, to ask, how do you feel now that the Kings won the Stanley cup?

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:13 PM
  #9
WhiteTrashAmerican
WHY DID IT END
 
WhiteTrashAmerican's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
I don't want to the season to start. I'd say start next year. Too much time has been lost and I would hate to see a team like the Islanders make the playoofs or even Edmonton when in a full season they wouldn't. Heck how would you feel if a team like Columbus won the CUP?
Seriously? Are you even a fan of hockey? I don't give a damn if there is a Bluejackets-Panthers finals. I just want to see some hockey

WhiteTrashAmerican is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:16 PM
  #10
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,575
vCash: 500
It would never happen, but if it's going to be a short season, I would love to see 2 games, home and away, against every club.

58 games, completely balanced and fair for every team.

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:18 PM
  #11
Section337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by M A K A V E L I View Post
Having the same # of games against divisional and conference opponents would make the divisions useless.

There needs to be 6 games against the divisional teams, 3 for the rest of the conference and the remaining extra games can be done randomly or based on rivalries in the conference.
Divisions have an adverse effect on 5 of the 8 playoffs spots in each conference. I would rather see fairness for those spots than 3 spots (heck hopefully they would just ignore divisions this year).

Section337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:21 PM
  #12
wpgJetsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColeMPV View Post
Seriously? Are you even a fan of hockey? I don't give a damn if there is a Bluejackets-Panthers finals. I just want to see some hockey
I am a hockey fan. But a short season is no good for the NHL. All you need is one lucky month and then play 500 hockey and you've made the playoffs.

Basically what I'm saying is that it all comes down to luck. You know at the beginning of the season you normally see some of the lower tier teams in first or 2nd place. In a shortend season they would make the playoffs than in a full schedule. It doesn't balance out in the end.

I don't think a shorter season is fair to the fans or any team.

wpgJetsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:23 PM
  #13
Warhead77
Jets4Life
 
Warhead77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The River City
Posts: 777
vCash: 500
I think the NHL wanted at the very least a 60 game season - not anything less than that.

Warhead77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:24 PM
  #14
TatarTangle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 3,132
vCash: 500
The parties involved are not professional hockey players or professional businessmen, they are professional heart-string pullers.

Would be fantastic though.

TatarTangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:25 PM
  #15
Twine Seeking Missle
Go monkey go!!!
 
Twine Seeking Missle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Suck-town
Country: United States
Posts: 7,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
I am a hockey fan. But a short season is no good for the NHL. All you need is one lucky month and then play 500 hockey and you've made the playoffs.

Basically what I'm saying is that it all comes down to luck. You know at the beginning of the season you normally see some of the lower tier teams in first or 2nd place. In a shortend season they would make the playoffs than in a full schedule. It doesn't balance out in the end.

I don't think a shorter season is fair to the fans or any team.
If a "lesser" team as you put it were to play better over a 56 game stretch than a perennial powerhouse, that "lesser" team has every right to be in the playoffs.


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 12-05-2012 at 01:30 PM. Reason: flaming
Twine Seeking Missle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:26 PM
  #16
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,559
vCash: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
I am a hockey fan. But a short season is no good for the NHL. All you need is one lucky month and then play 500 hockey and you've made the playoffs.

Basically what I'm saying is that it all comes down to luck. You know at the beginning of the season you normally see some of the lower tier teams in first or 2nd place. In a shortend season they would make the playoffs than in a full schedule. It doesn't balance out in the end.

I don't think a shorter season is fair to the fans or any team.
And why in your estimation is an 82 game season "fair". If you played a 100 game season you'd have different playoff teams than an 82 game one. A 200 game season different teams still.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:28 PM
  #17
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
I am a hockey fan. But a short season is no good for the NHL. All you need is one lucky month and then play 500 hockey and you've made the playoffs.
Like the 11/12 LA Kings? You know the ones. The ones who won 40 of their 82 games?

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:40 PM
  #18
tp71
Enjoy every sandwich
 
tp71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,053
vCash: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
I am a hockey fan. But a short season is no good for the NHL. All you need is one lucky month and then play 500 hockey and you've made the playoffs.

Basically what I'm saying is that it all comes down to luck. You know at the beginning of the season you normally see some of the lower tier teams in first or 2nd place. In a shortend season they would make the playoffs than in a full schedule. It doesn't balance out in the end.

I don't think a shorter season is fair to the fans or any team.
Isn't that the same with any schedule though? You could have a team start like 11-1 or something ridiculous and play .500 hockey the rest of the way. That team is going to make the playoffs.

tp71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:52 PM
  #19
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,751
vCash: 500
I wish a normal regular season was around 60-70 games.

wpgJetsfan should be a baseball fan.

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:56 PM
  #20
wpgJetsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,134
vCash: 500
You people don't get the point. You're too biased with wanting hockey back.

Anything less than an 82 schedule which has been normal for several seasons now would make an unfair competitive advantage to those lower tier'd teams.

When you play a full schedule you get injuries, fatigue. etc. You get to see the skill and depth of the team trying to push their way into the playoffs. With a short season you don't really get that. A team can have a lucky month and coast into the playoffs.

Coasting into the playoffs is somehting I do not like at all. This past season was very exciting when you have the last 10 games decides over many teams who would make it into the playoffs.

How would you feel if the following teams made the playoffs in a short season:
1. Florida
2. Winnipeg
3. Buffalo
4. Ny Islanders
5. Toronto
6. Carolina
7. Pittsburgh
8. New Jersey

1. Phoenix
2. Edmonton
3. Calgary
4. Columbus
5. Colorado
6. Nashville
7. St Louis
8. Detroit

wpgJetsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:57 PM
  #21
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
I don't want to the season to start. I'd say start next year. Too much time has been lost and I would hate to see a team like the Islanders make the playoofs or even Edmonton when in a full season they wouldn't. Heck how would you feel if a team like Columbus won the CUP?
Yeah, look at all the godawful teams that made the playoffs in 1994-95.

The only teams that made the playoffs in 1995 that didn't the year prior were Quebec (thank you Peter Forsberg) and Philadelphia (thank you John LeClair and Ron Hextall).

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 02:01 PM
  #22
Speedy Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
I don't want to the season to start. I'd say start next year. Too much time has been lost and I would hate to see a team like the Islanders make the playoofs or even Edmonton when in a full season they wouldn't. Heck how would you feel if a team like Columbus won the CUP?
As a Blue Jacket fan, I'd be elated. Hell, we'd be dancing in the streets if we could make the playoffs. Every team will play the same amount of games and have the same obstacles starting the season late, so why does it matter who makes it?

Speedy Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 02:02 PM
  #23
Booom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
You people don't get the point. You're too biased with wanting hockey back.

Anything less than an 82 schedule which has been normal for several seasons now would make an unfair competitive advantage to those lower tier'd teams.

When you play a full schedule you get injuries, fatigue. etc. You get to see the skill and depth of the team trying to push their way into the playoffs. With a short season you don't really get that. A team can have a lucky month and coast into the playoffs.

Coasting into the playoffs is somehting I do not like at all. This past season was very exciting when you have the last 10 games decides over many teams who would make it into the playoffs.

How would you feel if the following teams made the playoffs in a short season:
1. Florida
2. Winnipeg
3. Buffalo
4. Ny Islanders
5. Toronto
6. Carolina
7. Pittsburgh
8. New Jersey

1. Phoenix
2. Edmonton
3. Calgary
4. Columbus
5. Colorado
6. Nashville
7. St Louis
8. Detroit
you mean all the very strong traditional markets miss the playoffs and all the weaker ones make it? That sounds like something that would help the game,not hurt it.

Booom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 02:04 PM
  #24
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgJetsfan View Post
You people don't get the point. You're too biased with wanting hockey back.

Anything less than an 82 schedule which has been normal for several seasons now would make an unfair competitive advantage to those lower tier'd teams.

When you play a full schedule you get injuries, fatigue. etc. You get to see the skill and depth of the team trying to push their way into the playoffs. With a short season you don't really get that. A team can have a lucky month and coast into the playoffs.

Coasting into the playoffs is somehting I do not like at all. This past season was very exciting when you have the last 10 games decides over many teams who would make it into the playoffs.

How would you feel if the following teams made the playoffs in a short season:
1. Florida
2. Winnipeg
3. Buffalo
4. Ny Islanders
5. Toronto
6. Carolina
7. Pittsburgh
8. New Jersey

1. Phoenix
2. Edmonton
3. Calgary
4. Columbus
5. Colorado
6. Nashville
7. St Louis
8. Detroit
I seriously don't get what point you are going for?

Good teams may be bad? Who cares?
Bad teams may make the playoffs? Who cares?
A low seed may win the Stanley Cup? Did the world collapse when the Kings won last year?

Unless the games themselves are going to be played differently, the better teams will still win, the worse teams will still lose.

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 02:04 PM
  #25
flyguy
Sean Cubeturier
 
flyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Country: United States
Posts: 6,592
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to flyguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booom View Post
you mean all the very strong traditional markets miss the playoffs and all the weaker ones make it? That sounds like something that would help the game,not hurt it.
I think it would hurt the game a lot actually. They lose all of the TV ratings of the bigger markets.

flyguy 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 03:29 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.