|
Post by hockeynomad on Jun 8, 2004 11:31:10 GMT -5
I truly feel NHL season goes too long. I remember when hockey was finished in early May.
Hockey is a winter sport. Today its 32 Celsius in Toronot. Not exactly to get in frame of mind for hockey.
No way there should be hockey in June and in southern Florida to boot!
Now training camps for World Cup will start in probably 60 days.
|
|
NyQuil
Prospect
Sophomore
Posts: 113
|
Post by NyQuil on Jun 8, 2004 12:54:01 GMT -5
I think they should start the season in September and end it earlier.
As much as I'd like to reduce the number of games, part of me feels that ~ 80 games at least provides some basis of comparison in terms of scoring records between eras.
|
|
|
Post by starrightwinger on Jun 8, 2004 13:20:47 GMT -5
With the upcoming strike/lockout a few of the American based teams will fold because of lack of fan support. Fewer teams, fewer games!
|
|
roots
Prospect
Sophomore
growing old inevitable..growing up optional!
Posts: 816
|
Post by roots on Jun 8, 2004 16:27:18 GMT -5
from the players perspective too long, bad travel sched especially out west , no down time , no recovery time...from this fans point of view regular season could be cut some.
|
|
|
Post by MarmotMike on Jun 8, 2004 16:53:12 GMT -5
They could try shaving a few games off the pre-season. I don't see them attempting to reduce the number of playoff games played...
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Jun 8, 2004 21:16:16 GMT -5
Mike...
Good point about the preseason games.
The Canucks played like 10 or 11 games last preseason. Overkill.....
Max needed is 6, 2 home, 2 away, and 2 neutral site.
|
|
Graham
Prospect
Sophomore
GBSC Webmaster
Posts: 148
|
Post by Graham on Jun 9, 2004 4:07:40 GMT -5
Season is way too long. With 80+ games, how many people are able to get really excited about the regular season before the All Star break? When you play the other teams in your division 6 times, how can you get that excited? I realise that there are some teams you don't mind playing 6 times (Toronto v Montreal springs to mind), but there are probably no more than half a dozen match ups in the entire league like that.
Graham.
|
|
NyQuil
Prospect
Sophomore
Posts: 113
|
Post by NyQuil on Jun 9, 2004 9:43:33 GMT -5
>>When you play the other teams in your division 6 times, how can you get that excited? I realise that there are some teams you don't mind playing 6 times (Toronto v Montreal springs to mind)
Heh, I disagree completely, and the NHL seems to be leaning towards my opinion as well.
Personally I'd rather see the Senators play against rivals like Toronto and Montreal than against teams like Columbus and Nashville.
Excitement for hockey with me is not the variety of players and teams, but the much more personal nature of games against opponents you know, and know well.
The majority of rivalries occur between divisional rivals, aside from those that spring up from consistent but coincidental playoff meetings (i.e. Dallas vs. Edmonton)
The NHL has discussed doing away with inter-conference play entirely during the regular season (i.e. like baseball not so long ago) but I think that's a bit of overkill.
One result could be that the relatively open play of the Western conference would only become more so, while the tight-checking East would become even more offensively challenged. (not such a good thing for us in the East)
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Jun 9, 2004 23:39:40 GMT -5
I think that the season should be shortended, but only marginally. I think that there - should only be 6 pre-season games, 2 home, 2 away and 2 and neutral sites
- Season should start on October 1st, no later. The NHL has always cowered to the other sports. They say that they start the NHL season as late a possible so that there is less overlap with Baseball and Football (the 2 sport-kings in the US). I say screw that - play to your fans.
- I would only reduce the season to 76 games, not more than that. You want to have some sort of consistency for the sake of the record book
Graham - I'm sorry but you are way off the mark here. Here in Vancouver - we have 4 divisional opponents, the - Calgary Flames,
- Colorado Avalanche,
- Edmonton Oilers, and
- Minnesota Wild
And every game is an event here when Vancouver plays them - and the same thing in the other 4 cities. Others would include: - Edm-Cgy
- Min-Col
- Det-St.L
- Col-Det
- Dal-SJ
- Nas-Cbj (I didn't expect this one either)
- Dal-Col
- Dal-Min
- Mtl-Tor
- Tor-Ott
- Mtl-Bos
- Tor-NJ
- Phi-Tor
- Phi-NJ
- Phi-NYI
- Phi-NYR
- NYR-NJ
- NYR-NYI
should I go on? In fact, there is a movement in the Eastern Conference to try to make it so that they play eachother even more times. They argue that, for eg, Philadelphia would rather have New Jersey come in 9 to 12 times rather than have Western teams come in. I disagree with this, but they continue to argue for it.
|
|
Graham
Prospect
Sophomore
GBSC Webmaster
Posts: 148
|
Post by Graham on Jun 10, 2004 4:01:03 GMT -5
Gurj,
I think the difference is that you are looking at it from the perspective of a fan of one of the teams, I'm looking at it from the outside.
I can see that these games mean something to those who follow their team week after week, and so you don't want to lose them.
But I don't think a Vancouver-Minnesota game is a big game for the TV public. And, unfortunately, it's the TV market that the NHL need to pull in. I know that attendances are down in general inside the buildings, alarmingly so in places like Pittsburgh. But, still the majority of rinks are close enough to full that the only way to grow the sport is try and make it catch up with the other major sports in terms of TV share.
I guess it comes down to whether the NHL wants to concentrate on it's immediate markets, or whether it wants continent domination.
Graham.
|
|
NyQuil
Prospect
Sophomore
Posts: 113
|
Post by NyQuil on Jun 10, 2004 10:25:55 GMT -5
>>I guess it comes down to whether the NHL wants to concentrate on it's immediate markets, or whether it wants continent domination.
I think consolidation of their existing fans is more important than trying to get more.
I'm sorry, but as I said elsewhere, the US sports market is an extremely crowded and competitive one.
Besides college sports, you have MLB, NBA, NFL, golf, NASCAR, AFL, MLS etc.
The fact that NHL has no cultural foundation in many parts of the US (particularly the warmer climates) doesn't help either
Running around like a chicken with its head cut off to try and pin down how to attract fans to the sport just cheapens hockey. Changing the rules every year, trying desperate gimmicks (Fox Trax glowing puck), just makes the sport look needy.
Hopefully some sort of revenue-sharing arrangement can be found, and the sport settles down with 24-30 solid franchises.
Until Americans across the country go outside and play street hockey on a regular basis, all of Bettman's marketing flair and rule modifications won't amount to anything.
|
|
|
Post by Lukasz on Jun 10, 2004 13:44:15 GMT -5
Yes Yes Yes! NHL season is too long. Last NHL match should been play a one week before first match of World Championships Division I When NHL start season this is not important, but they should end season like I wrote above, this is my proposition! (very serious proposition
|
|
NyQuil
Prospect
Sophomore
Posts: 113
|
Post by NyQuil on Jun 10, 2004 14:34:03 GMT -5
>>Last NHL match should been play a one week before first match of World Championships Division I I'm not sure. The playoffs have to retain the four round 7 game format, which takes a significant amount of time. That is the essence of the NHL. In which case, the regular season would have to either start earlier, or they'd have to knock off some games. Reducing the number of games is difficult because the owners don't like the idea of losing revenue. Also, the consistency of most NHL records is at around an 80 game series. Call me nostalgic, but I like an 80 game season with 4 rounds of playoffs. Reduce the length of the pre-season. But keep the grind that in an NHL season. To win you have to go through hell and back. Besides, we can easily have the last match of the NHL a week before the World Championships Division I, if the WC moves to June
|
|
|
Post by Lukasz on Jun 10, 2004 15:38:33 GMT -5
NyQuil, of course I understand all your arguments. I have only one postulate: Czerkawski and Oliwa in national team! This is all! Quote: “Besides, we can easily have the last match of the NHL a week before the World Championships Division I, if the WC moves to June” it is also good way, maybe compromise?
|
|
Graham
Prospect
Sophomore
GBSC Webmaster
Posts: 148
|
Post by Graham on Jun 11, 2004 4:36:42 GMT -5
Reducing the number of games is difficult because the owners don't like the idea of losing revenue. Also, the consistency of most NHL records is at around an 80 game series. I'm still not sure I agree with this. The sport has changed so much over the years, that records are already difficult to compare. As examples: The Art Ross Trophy was won with 38+56 this year. But that is an a league where the average goals per game is 5. 20 years ago, Gretzky won it with 87+118. OK, Gretzky was God, but his total was also helped by playing in a league with a significantly higher goals per game than 5. Likewise goalies. They are currently about 2 goals a game better than they were 20 years ago. For me, I could understand an 82 game schedule more if the President's Trophy meant something. But it doesn't. The NHL regular season is just an 82-game first round of a knock-out tournament, as far as I can make out. A lot of sports in Europe take part in 3 tournaments a year. An early season cup, a league (with those two generally overlapping) and a late season or end of season cup. If the NHL wants 82 games, I think it should look at introducing another competition so that each game result at least means something. But then again, I'm not an paying fan in the NHL, so feel free to ignore my comments... Graham.
|
|