Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

NHL rejects 84-game season

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 11:35 PM EST 17/04/08

Proposal remains a possibility for 2009-10, however, deputy commissioner Bill Daly says ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. The Seeker from Toronto, Canada writes: The last thing the NHL needs are more games.

    How about we take away 12 games? The damn season is long enough.
  2. bob smith from Canada writes: Seeing how good playoff games are makes you realize how bad regular season games are. I'm with the Seeker, I'd rather see a 70-72 game season.
  3. Liam Smith from Canada writes: I agree fully. Seventy game season.
  4. Shades of Grey from Whitehorse, Canada writes: Don't you love how nowhere on the NHL site do fans have the opportunity to comment. Hello Mr. Bettman, without the fans you don't have a business model.

    I understand it's all about money, but adding spring and summer games to a winter sport is a shortsighted solution. Personally, I have no interest in watching hockey prior to the middle of October, and completely lose interest in hockey by the May 24 long weekend. Did you and the owners ever think that by shortening the regular season and playoffs you could generate additional buzz that would mean increased TV, advertising and product sales?
  5. bruce desjardins from Windsor, Canada writes: What's next...twilight doubleheaders?
    The schedule should allow all teams to play in all cities and stop trying to flog divisional rivalries. Surely this can be achieved in the computer age with less than 80 games.
  6. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: More games means more player injuries but more revenue for the teams...

    Hmmm..... which do you think is going to win out in that equation?

    Forget that I even asked.

    Cheers.
  7. B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: Detroit doesn't want 84 games instead of 82 for revenue...they want games against Ovechkin, Crosby, original six rivals, shortened travel in the east, etc. to bring in the revenue. The league should do it. Waiting up to 2 years for a single home game to see your team play against another in the opposite conference is ridiculous.

    If changing two exhibition games to regular season is how we're going to get rid of the stupid conference schedule, I'm all for it.
  8. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States:

    Yeah, but what about the hockey fans living in the sticks...

    Without those NHL exhibition games, we wouldn't even get NHL hockey in Halifax (Next fall, Bruins versus Habs and Bruins versus Red Wings.)

    Unless, the NHL goes back to playing some second site games like when Halifax used to be the second site of the New York Rangers in the Messsier days...

    Cheers.
  9. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: A hockey game used to be an event. Now you get one free with every Timmys sold.

    70-game schedule.
  10. Bobby S from Toronto, Canada writes: a 58 game schedule, one in which every team plays every other team twice a season (one at home and one on the road). Move away from the divisions and have the two conferences and seed teams accordingly.

    No one should be playing hockey in June.

    That's my $0.02.
  11. Nils Sundin from Canada writes: The NHL should remember that hockey is a winter sport. With the current schedule and playoffs we have hockey in June! That's when people should be wearing shorts and having drinks with paper umbrellas in them.

    Agree with others - season is WAY too long. Cut it down by at least 20 games or so and have a 60 game season.
  12. Dwide Schrude from Canada writes: I guess that means 2 games less that the entire United States isn't watching?
  13. P McLean from Canada writes: First of all, 80 games won't go away because a)revenue, b)any less would not be enough games to alow someone to take a run at some records, which generates interest. Even though it was nowhere near the record, Ovechkin's 65 goals generated alot more interest than you think. Secondly, even with an 80 games schedule throughout the 1980s, and most likely the 70s as well, 1992 was the first time a game was played in June, and that was due to the player's strike. How did they manage to play the same number of games back then and stay out of June? April 6th was refreshing for a final day of the season for a change. Based on the last few years we would be lloking at the end of season right about now. This is much better.
  14. Hugh Draper from Vancouver, Canada writes: Just watch the playoffs; they're long enough and provide better entertainment.
  15. Shades of Grey from Whitehorse, Canada writes: Dwide Schrude, great posting!!!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top