conundrumed Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Probably shoulda polled, but I enjoy opinions. Should hockey resume on a 40-45 game schedule, what's your interest level?? I ask because I'm leery about what a short schedule means, and how it ends up being a season with a giant asterisk. Is it worth it to us fans to at least get some satisfaction from, "well, no....guys: We aren't interested in watching half a year".? Will owners do a single season buyback on season's tix where they didn't actually hold up their end of the bargain?hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invin Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 I don't plan to buy any merch or go to any games, but I'd definitely follow a shortened season. I know the validity of a short season is debatable, but I'd kind of like to see how it would play out. Would we still have most of the same teams in the playoffs, or would the huge ups and downs some teams experience (Boston's atrocious start last year, the Wild being near the top before they blew it) shake things up significantly? I tend to cheer for the underdog, so to me the race might be exciting when every game is twice as important as it would be in a full season. The "elite" teams don't have long to recover if they choke early on, and if an underdog puts together a heck of a run they can find themselves in the playoffs. I wouldn't say it's better, but at least it's crazy enough to be entertaining (to me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igster Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Yup, I would watch any hockey that came along. Besides, with a shortened season, it could be very interesting and someone who we are not expecting to win, might win it all. Might be fun really. I've never been in the boycott mode, so I will watch whenever they hit the ice again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL44 Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 A shortened season on its own without the bitter lockout after taste would be incredibly awesome and drama filled. The marathon would to cut to a sprint. The cream wouldn't have time to rise in case slow starts does its usual round of hitting some eventual playoff teams... The standings would be unpredictable. I mean, we could guesstimate playoff teams... but it would be all about which teams happen to make an early run... and as we know, early runs don't always reflect the best teams. I would love it for the scoring races as well... again the cream may not get a chance to rise here either... I mean last yr we may of had a Kessel as the Art Ross winner and the Wild as President Trophy winners. Other than a big fat * required for the regular season... none would be required for the Playoffs... Still a 4 round grind with the cup always going to most deserving team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastleMania Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Nope, not interested. Would rather see both sides lose the revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKscout Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 would I watch .. if the hockey is good .. maybe, perhaps even probably. Would I respect a team's cup win as legitimate .. no, no way in hell. You can't play 1/2 a season and expect to be cup champs. If that was possible we would have hoisted the cup in Calgary at least 3 or 4 seasons during this current CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada15 Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 I feel people are stupid or they didn't care before if they decide not to watch. 48 game season would be so exciting. Every game would be like a playoff game. A short sprint to the playoffs would be refreshing. 48 games is by all means enough to judge who should make it. Playoffs are what count any ways. Just if you decide not to watch, don't comment or say the season isn't valid. If you don't care, then don't care, but I do and other hockey fans do, so stay quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 would I watch .. if the hockey is good .. maybe, perhaps even probably. Would I respect a team's cup win as legitimate .. no, no way in hell. You can't play 1/2 a season and expect to be cup champs. If that was possible we would have hoisted the cup in Calgary at least 3 or 4 seasons during this current CBA. It still takes 16 wins in the playoffs to hoist the cup. Any suggestion taht that wasn't legitimate would be pretty silly IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 The 82 game season was way too long to begin with. 45 games is a lot closer to what it "should be" considering the length of time they have playoffs. I would much rather have snow on the ground when they are playing for the cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronco73 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 I'll take anything I can get. A ten game season is fine by me if these idiots would ever get their heads out of their arses and make a bleeping deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 A normal regular season is too long anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL44 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 IF there is a short season this yr... Injuries are going play their part in dictating the standings this yr... Teams that make it will be 1- teams with great depth. or 2 - teams that get lucky with injuries. The cup finalists should be teams that qualify for both #1 and #2. So which teams are deepest teams right now? I know I like my team... Luck you can't really predict, unless you have Salo, Babchuk, Hemsky, Kesler, Dipietro, Gagne, Markov, Oshie, or Havlat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tachaudh Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 I would absolutely watch. My interest is in the actual hockey played and my loyalties are to the crest on the front of the Flames jersey. Whether the team is owned by Murray Edwards or George W. Bush, I really don't give a crap. I don't have a name on the back of my jersey either. The winner of the Stanley Cup in a shortnered season would absolutely be legitimate because everybody plays under the same conditions. A 48 game season isn't going to be a surprise to anyone. Everyone knows and everybody will have to adjust accordingly. Why should a team have to apologize for winning the Stanley Cup in a shortned season? They earned it in the conditions that were relevant at the time, which were applied to everyone and every team equally and fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest happycat Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 Just start the season already. Gahhhhhhhhh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 I would absolutely watch. My interest is in the actual hockey played and my loyalties are to the crest on the front of the Flames jersey. Whether the team is owned by Murray Edwards or George W. Bush, I really don't give a crap. I don't have a name on the back of my jersey either. The winner of the Stanley Cup in a shortnered season would absolutely be legitimate because everybody plays under the same conditions. A 48 game season isn't going to be a surprise to anyone. Everyone knows and everybody will have to adjust accordingly. Why should a team have to apologize for winning the Stanley Cup in a shortned season? They earned it in the conditions that were relevant at the time, which were applied to everyone and every team equally and fairly. NJ won their 1st SC in the 48 game 1994-95 season. You never see that mentioned now. Every team will play the same # of games & lapses will be more noticeable in a compressed season so it could be harder to win in a season that doesn't forgive losing streaks. As DD & Peeps said, the 82 game schedule is too long anyway. A shorter regular season that is less forgiving would lead to more desperation.exciting hockey. I'd even accept a roundrobin (1 game knockout so should only add about a week to the overall) between the last 2 teams in each conference to determine that #16 spot if it shaved 2 weeks of the regular schedule. Also remove the useless exhibition games to start earlier & the Cup could be awarded late May rather then mid-late June (when only the fans of the teams involved & the hardcore fans still care). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL44 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 I don't see anyone ever discount these regular season achievements from 1995 either: Presidents' Trophy: Detroit Red Wings Wales Trophy: New Jersey Devils Campbell Bowl: Detroit Red Wings Conn Smythe Trophy: Claude Lemieux, New Jersey Devils Art Ross Trophy: Jaromir Jagr, Pittsburgh Penguins Hart Trophy: Eric Lindros, Philadelphia Flyers Pearson Award: Eric Lindros, Philadelphia Flyers Norris Trophy: Paul Coffey, Detroit Red Wings Selke Trophy: Ron Francis, Pittsburgh Penguins Calder Trophy: Peter Forsberg, Quebec Nordiques Vezina Trophy: Dominik Hasek, Buffalo Sabres Lady Byng Memorial Trophy: Ron Francis, Pittsburgh Penguins Jack Adams Award: Marc Crawford, Quebec Nordiques NHL Plus/Minus Award: Ron Francis, Pittsburgh Penguins Jennings Trophy: Ed Belfour, Chicago Blackhawks King Clancy Memorial Trophy: Joe Nieuwendyk, Calgary Flames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 As DD & Peeps said, the 82 game schedule is too long anyway. Every year, it feels like they play tryouts in September, then pre-season from October until February, and then the real season begins after that. They really should cut it down to 68 games max. Start in October and end in April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronco73 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 that 68 game season could be easily done too. the 24 intra-divisional games could be cut down to 20 by having each team play each other 5 games rather than 6. the 40 conference (non-divisional) games could be cut down to 30 by having each team play one another 3 times rather than 4 the remaining inter-divisional league games could remain the same: (12 games at 1 time vs. 1 opponent and 6 games at 2 times vs. 3 opponents) That gives us 20 + 30 + 18 = 68 games. An advantage to this is the intra-divisional games would be a season series of 5 rather than 6, giving us a difinitive "winner", and games played against the eastern conference would remain the same, plus you'd still get 3 games against the rest of the teams in your conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 that 68 game season could be easily done too. the 24 intra-divisional games could be cut down to 20 by having each team play each other 5 games rather than 6. the 40 conference (non-divisional) games could be cut down to 30 by having each team play one another 3 times rather than 4 the remaining inter-divisional league games could remain the same: (12 games at 1 time vs. 1 opponent and 6 games at 2 times vs. 3 opponents) That gives us 20 + 30 + 18 = 68 games. An advantage to this is the intra-divisional games would be a season series of 5 rather than 6, giving us a difinitive "winner", and games played against the eastern conference would remain the same, plus you'd still get 3 games against the rest of the teams in your conference. That makes waaaay too much sense bro. Less games means each game is more meaningful. Each game can fetch for more in ticket prices. Each game will get more viewership on TV. Each game will affect the seedings/standings more. Each game will be played more intense by both teams. Less games means more rest between games. No more BS back to back games where one team is dog tired by the 3rd period. But unfortunately, let's not forget, this is the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hossinator Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I'm all for a partial season. Hockey is my life, and I'm glad to see some hockey better than non. The whole no interconference thing sucks though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.