A Shortened NHL Season? Hmm…

While reading a list of reasons why the NHL lockout might not be so bad (I think it was a joke; at least, I hope it was a joke), I came across something interesting – the mention that while fans are upset about the complete loss of NHL hockey, they might be happy that there would be less games if the league were to end the lockout before the entire season was lost.

This idea is new to me. I’ve never once thought that the hockey season was too long. I always want more, more, more! But after posing the question on Twitter, it seems that there are some people who think a shorter season might be a good thing — or at least a shorter postseason.

There are both positives and negatives to having a shortened season. The positives include (but are not limited to): more time for players to recover and teams to regroup after games, the potential for cheaper season ticket packages for fans, and less money spent on travel for the beat writers (gotta include the writers in here somewhere!). The negatives include less money made at concessions in the arenas, less revenue for the league, and less hockey for fans to enjoy – a pretty big negative, if you ask me!

For the Flyers, I have to admit that a shortened season might be better than one that lasts all 82 games. Peter Laviolette’s fast-paced and high-energy system is enough to wear anyone out, and though the Flyers have a lot of young guys on the team now, they have some veterans who aren’t as spry as they used to be. Some extra days to rest scattered throughout a season would most likely be welcome and helpful.

But I doubt any players hope for the league to change the number of games per season. They probably feel like they don’t get to play enough games by the time all is said and done, because they love the game they play so much.

82 games, 75 games, 50 games, whatever. I’ll take a 25-game season, so long as it means we actually get NHL hockey back.