Brian Burke: 72 game vs 82 game sched

[trahans99]

Brian Burke has suggested again that the NHL drops 10 games/season and goes down to 82. Whats everyones thoughts on that?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=110994

I personally think that would not be a good idea, what about all the records and stats. We'd never see another 50 goal scorer or 100 point season in todays NHL. I love stats and numbers and think it would make more sense to eliminate 5 preseason games and space out the games a little bit more. Maybe start the regular season in the middle of September not October so they can play 1 game every 2.8 nights or something instead of 2.4 (i think thats the number it was a few years ago).

The league needs all the revenue it can get and losing 10 games is alot of money which would drop player salaries even lower from 1.3m if they get in the new CBA, that would be even lower losing 10 games.

Click to read more...

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I'm in favor of playing a 76 game schedule.

5 vs. divsion (20 games)
4 vs. conference (40 games)
1 vs other conference (15 games)
1 "rivalry game" to even out the schedule

76 total


I'd add a week back into the schedule and drop 6 games, which would eliminate teams ever having to play 3 games in 4 nights, which IMO is one of the biggest problems in todays game.


Players are paid on a per gamer basis, so all salaries would drop accoridingly.

Exp: Someone getting paid $4.1 million, makes $50K per game. His new salary would be $3.8 million.

 

[kingsfan]

I'm in favor of playing a 76 game schedule.

5 vs. divsion (20 games)
4 vs. conference (40 games)
1 vs other conference (15 games)
1 "rivalry game" to even out the schedule

76 total


I'd add a week back into the schedule and drop 6 games, which would eliminate teams ever having to play 3 games in 4 nights, which IMO is one of the biggest problems in todays game.


Players are paid on a per gamer basis, so all salaries would drop accoridingly.

Exp: Someone getting paid $4.1 million, makes $50K per game. His new salary would be $3.6 million.

That'd be $3.8 million, not $3.6 million

 

[trahans99]

I'm in favor of playing a 76 game schedule.

5 vs. divsion (20 games)
4 vs. conference (40 games)
1 vs other conference (15 games)
1 "rivalry game" to even out the schedule

76 total


I'd add a week back into the schedule and drop 6 games, which would eliminate teams ever having to play 3 games in 4 nights, which IMO is one of the biggest problems in todays game.


Players are paid on a per gamer basis, so all salaries would drop accoridingly.

Exp: Someone getting paid $4.1 million, makes $50K per game. His new salary would be $3.6 million.

That would be okay then from a $$$ standpoint but to me I love stats and want to be able to compare players stats today to last decade. If they change the number of games it would change all of that. I'd rather see them drop 5 or 6 preseason games because the players come into camp in great shape already it doesn't take a month to get ready for the NHL it should only take 2 weeks.

 

[GKJ]

which would eliminate teams ever having to play 3 games in 4 nights, which IMO is one of the biggest problems in todays game.

You could probably just do that if the season starts on October 1 every year instead of October 8 and end the season on April 10.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

That would be okay then from a $$$ standpoint but to me I love stats and want to be able to compare players stats today to last decade. If they change the number of games it would change all of that. I'd rather see them drop 5 or 6 preseason games because the players come into camp in great shape already it doesn't take a month to get ready for the NHL it should only take 2 weeks.

Agreed that preseason could be shortened, but preseason is a cash cow for the owners, they won't give that up.

Also the changes in length have schedule have changed frequently.

In 1970 is was 76 games
1971 - 78
1975 - 80
1993 - 84
1996 - 92

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Do you really this either side would go for this??

Less games = less revenue. If the owners are able to tie revenue to payroll the players would see less money.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Do you really this either side would go for this??

Less games = less revenue. If the owners are able to tie revenue to payroll the players would see less money.

I'm not sure about dropping to 72 games, but I do think the players/owners would look at dropping back to 76 or so.

Everyone would get less money, but also less work as well. Cutting 10 games would be about 3.5 weeks or so.

 

[trahans99]

Agreed that preseason could be shortened, but preseason is a cash cow for the owners, they won't give that up.

Also the changes in length have schedule have changed frequently.

In 1970 is was 76 games
1971 - 78
1975 - 80
1993 - 84
1996 - 92

Do you mean 82 in 1996?


The preseason is a cashcow for the owners i'm sure, but the attendance is probably about 75% of the regular season numbers and i think the owners would rather keep there reg. season attendance over 5 preseason games.

The bottom line to me is the preseason is too long and boring and for what? To get the players into game shape? NO, they already work out hardcore all summer so they are in shape before camp even opens up.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Do you mean 82 in 1996?


The preseason is a cashcow for the owners i'm sure, but the attendance is probably about 75% of the regular season numbers and i think the owners would rather keep there reg. season attendance over 5 preseason games.

The bottom line to me is the preseason is too long and boring and for what? To get the players into game shape? NO, they already work out hardcore all summer so they are in shape before camp even opens up.

Yes, I meant 82.

Season ticket holder have to pay for the preseason games whether they attend or not. plus the players are being paid very little money during the preseason.


A preseason game brings in less revenue for the owner, but gives them more profit than a regular season game.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Less games = Less hockey. So im thumbs down for it.

 

[trahans99]

Yes, I meant 82.

Season ticket holder have to pay for the preseason games whether they attend or not. plus the players are being paid very little money during the preseason.


A preseason game brings in less revenue for the owner, but gives them more profit than a regular season game.

Yes I understand that point of it but I like stats and numbers and don't want to see the top goal scorer in the league with 30 or 35 goals and 75-85 points. If they go back to 80 reg. season games and 5 preseason games I could handle that.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Agreed that preseason could be shortened, but preseason is a cash cow for the owners, they won't give that up.

Also the changes in length have schedule have changed frequently.

In 1970 is was 76 games
1971 - 78
1975 - 80
1993 - 84
1996 - 92

If you don't think the owners would give up 5 preseason games, than how can you say they would give up 6 regular season games?

 

[txpd]

I am for the 72 games schedule for one major reason. it cut way down on the number of back to back and 3 games in 4 nights on the schedule. that will improve the quality of play in the league. this sport is not meant to be played like that and the fatigue and a team's record in the 2nd half of those back to back games makes my point.

It gets even better if they go in the no non-conference games direction. that will cut down on the travel and allow the players to be even fresher.

of course this scenario will also cut down on injuries. i am for it.

 

[West]

Ok a little off topic here but let's try this questions.

How many of you die hard fans out their watch all 82 of your teams hockey games a year (not including play-offs)?

I'm guessing that even on these boards that most people are topping out on say 50-60 games a year and we're talking die hard fans here. So on any given game realistically less than half your fan base is watching.

No wonder hockey ratings suck. If you look at your average football fan I bet they watch nearly every game. If (BIG IF) hockey is ever going to break in south of the border it's going to realistcally need to reduce the number of games.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Ok a little off topic here but let's try this questions.

How many of you die hard fans out their watch all 82 of your teams hockey games a year (not including play-offs)?

I'm guessing that even on these boards that most people are topping out on say 50-60 games a year and we're talking die hard fans here. So on any given game realistically less than half your fan base is watching.

No wonder hockey ratings suck. If you look at your average football fan I bet they watch nearly every game. If (BIG IF) hockey is ever going to break in south of the border it's going to realistcally need to reduce the number of games.

I disagree with you there. IMO most die-hard fans are watching a minimum of 90% of their teams games. Now some of that might be on tape, but they're still watching them.

 

[colonel_korn]

Ok a little off topic here but let's try this questions.

How many of you die hard fans out their watch all 82 of your teams hockey games a year (not including play-offs)?

I'm guessing that even on these boards that most people are topping out on say 50-60 games a year and we're talking die hard fans here. So on any given game realistically less than half your fan base is watching.

No wonder hockey ratings suck. If you look at your average football fan I bet they watch nearly every game. If (BIG IF) hockey is ever going to break in south of the border it's going to realistcally need to reduce the number of games.

Major League Baseball has what, 160+ games in a season? Doesn't seem to cause a problem for them. The NBA has about the same number of games in a season as the NHL. I don't think you can say that the number of games in a season is causing poor ratings.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I am for the 72 games schedule for one major reason. it cut way down on the number of back to back and 3 games in 4 nights on the schedule. that will improve the quality of play in the league. this sport is not meant to be played like that and the fatigue and a team's record in the 2nd half of those back to back games makes my point.

It gets even better if they go in the no non-conference games direction. that will cut down on the travel and allow the players to be even fresher.

of course this scenario will also cut down on injuries. i am for it.

IMO back-to-back games are fine, but 3 games in 4 nights should be outlawed.

I'm for adding one week back into the season and dropping 6 games. Those additional 13 "off-nights" should be enough to get rid of all 3 games in 4 nights scenarios.

As a season ticket holder I am very very much against elimination of non-conference games. IMO one game vs. each non-conference game is ideal. You get each team in your building every other year.

Imagine being an LA Kings season ticket holder for 30 years, with no non-conference games you never would have seen the following players in your building (yes I know conference ties were different, but assume they weren't for one second)" Bobby Orr, Denis Potvin, Guy Lafleur, Mike Bossy, Bryan Trottier, Bobby Clarke, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Eric Lindros etc. etc.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Ok a little off topic here but let's try this questions.

How many of you die hard fans out their watch all 82 of your teams hockey games a year (not including play-offs)?

I'm guessing that even on these boards that most people are topping out on say 50-60 games a year and we're talking die hard fans here. So on any given game realistically less than half your fan base is watching.

No wonder hockey ratings suck. If you look at your average football fan I bet they watch nearly every game. If (BIG IF) hockey is ever going to break in south of the border it's going to realistcally need to reduce the number of games.

I do but I am probably in the minority.

 

[PecaFan]

How many of you die hard fans out their watch all 82 of your teams hockey games a year (not including play-offs)?

Watch? Can't watch them all, since they're not all televised. But I do watch every single game on tv, and listen to the others on radio.

I'd say the only games I've missed in years would be the odd game on radio that conflicted with something important, like a birthday or anniversary dinner. The odd vacation.

I'd say I've watched/listened to 990 out of the last 1000 games.

Oh, and of course, I watch every other game on tv as well, even though it's not my team playing. So that's probably another two or three games a week.

 

[me2]

I'm not sure about dropping to 72 games, but I do think the players/owners would look at dropping back to 76 or so.

Everyone would get less money, but also less work as well. Cutting 10 games would be about 3.5 weeks or so.

76 is good but its almost 10% of the games. I doubt the players want to rollback 24% then lose a further 10% if the season is shortened.