Regular Season is too long?

[wr50l]

In my opinion yes. In my opinion stretching the league out into 82 games devalues each individual matchup.

I also think there are far too many divisional games, rivalry games are supposed to be something to savour and the results are supposed to really mean something, in the current format of 6 games each game means too little in my opinion.

I also think players would try harder on a less rigorous schedule.

Am I just a European n00b who doesn't get it or am I right?

 

[PP]

In my opinion yes. In my opinion stretching the league out into 82 games devalues each individual matchup.

I also think there are far too many divisional games, rivalry games are supposed to be something to savour and the results are supposed to really mean something, in the current format of 6 games each game means too little in my opinion.

I also think players would try harder on a less rigorous schedule.

Am I just a European n00b who doesn't get it or am I right?

82 games is not too many. I don't like how each team doesn't play every team in the league like old days. I like playing a few games vs division rivals etc but this year Boston played San Jose once.. thats a big time matchup. I am sure this can be tweaked a bit but 82 games has been the norm forever.

 

[killgod]

In my opinion yes. In my opinion stretching the league out into 82 games devalues each individual matchup.

I also think there are far too many divisional games, rivalry games are supposed to be something to savour and the results are supposed to really mean something, in the current format of 6 games each game means too little in my opinion.

I also think players would try harder on a less rigorous schedule.

Am I just a European n00b who doesn't get it or am I right?

last year was bad, 8 divisional games and only playing one division from the other conference was just plain dumb.

this year's sked is good, everyone plays everyone and 6 divisional games is spot on.

you are a n00b that just doesn't get it!

but really, if you were over here and attended hockey games every so often, you'd honestly wish there was a live game in your area every night. hockey live is INCREDIBLE.

 

[Apocalypse]

82 games is not too many. I don't like how each team doesn't play every team in the league like old days. I like playing a few games vs division rivals etc but this year Boston played San Jose once.. thats a big time matchup. I am sure this can be tweaked a bit but 82 games has been the norm forever.

I'm pretty sure they made it just this season that every team plays each other at least once, but i could be wrong...

I think it's fine the way it is, it'd be weird if anything was changed length-wise because like you said Premier, 82 has been the normal forever.

 

[Ravin]

Isn't basketball 82 as well, and baseball is 164. I think baseball season is to long, but hey, it shows how much real effort they put out and how tough the sport is when they can play 164 games in the same amount of time hockey plays its season.

 

[JRoZe410]

Isn't basketball 82 as well, and baseball is 164. I think baseball season is to long, but hey, it shows how much real effort they put out and how tough the sport is when they can play 164 games in the same amount of time hockey plays its season.

Have to agree with you there.Hockey is not too long.MLB is too long.Hockey live is very awesome indeed.I am fortunate to get to see Alex Ovechkin whenever I go to see a live game.

 

[Ravin]

What sickens me is that Alex Ovechkin makes $10M a season and plays 82 regular season games while CC Sabathia will pitch at most, 35 games and make $23 million. He doesn't get checked, slashed, punched, roughed, or followed around on the field, he just throws a damn ball and makes double what Ovey makes.

Baseball would have no idea what to do with its self if it had a salary cap. Average sports cap is about say 50-60M a year. Two players on the Yankee's have ate it all up. It would be funny to have to see them go "A-rod, look, you're going to have to take a little pay cut. Not to big, just, you know, $20M a season."

 

[Blade]

I think the length of the season is fine based on the number of teams there are. I honestly thing some teams should be cut out. Useless markets, like Nashville, Phoenix, Tampa Bay should be thrown out.

The talent is so diluted by all these teams its ridiculous. The league should be for elite players.

 

[PP]

Baseball is such a grind. Its a stats thing, and to get a good average you need to have more games for more at bats etc. I really like each sport for its unique approach.

 

[Apocalypse]

100% agree with that. every sport should have a salary cap

There definitely needs to be a salary cap in every sport.

I find it stupid that any baseball player or football player makes 10X more than hockey players.
Hockey in my opinion, i hope you guys think the same, is the most physically demanding sport out of all the major sports.

 

[PP]

There definitely needs to be a salary cap in every sport.

I find it stupid that any baseball player or football player makes 10X more than hockey players.
Hockey in my opinion, i hope you guys think the same, is the most physically demanding sport out of all the major sports.

I think soccer is, but thats not taking anything away from hockey players at all. Each sport is its own beast.

 

[Ravin]

There is no way soccer is the most physically demanding sport. Yes, they do play 90mins without coming off the field, but if you see a game, sure looks like a lot of those guys are having a nice little walk through the park. I'd put the physicality of one shift in the NHL against 10-15minutes of soccer.

Football is fairly close to the toughness, and my bias leans to hockey, because football is stop and go, not a constant motion.

 

[Apocalypse]

There is no way soccer is the most physically demanding sport. Yes, they do play 90mins without coming off the field, but if you see a game, sure looks like a lot of those guys are having a nice little walk through the park. I'd put the physicality of one shift in the NHL against 10-15minutes of soccer.

Football is fairly close to the toughness, and my bias leans to hockey, because football is stop and go, not a constant motion.

I'll second that.

 

[wr50l]

Football (soccer) is cardiovascular assault. It is a marathon.

ProZone calculated last season that, on average, Wayne Rooney covers 11.82 kilometres a match, of which 4km is at walking pace, 4.8km jogging, 1.5km running, 1km light sprinting and 500 metres sprinting.

All depends on what kind of toughness you're talking about. If you want to define toughness as the rough and tumble physical contact within a game then don't even put football on that pedestal, but it's by no means a "walk through the park" (RAVIN!)

 

[killgod]

Football (soccer) is cardiovascular assault. It is a marathon.



All depends on what kind of toughness you're talking about. If you want to define toughness as the rough and tumble physical contact within a game then don't even put football on that pedestal, but it's by no means a "walk through the park" (RAVIN!)

Nothing demands more from a cardio perspective than soccer. Hands down.


But soccer doesn't have the physicality which is very demanding and takes it toll through a sporting event. Stopping and starting is underrated too IMO, if you were to ask a marathon runner to 'stop and start' throughout their run they'd certainly tell you that would be much tougher.

If I were to guess, Ravin's never played football before. Football isn't as demanding as the others, but it's not by a long margin. At the pro level they have commericals and all that jazz, but if you strip that away and play at the pace of high school/semi pro/whatever, it's not a walk in the park that's for sure.

 

[Ravin]

Never said football is a walk in the park, and I'd put it second to hockey in terms of toughness. Every time I watch soccer though, you see half the team walking or standing still. Where as hockey is always in motion, and it is end to end all the time. 20minutes of ice time in hockey at a high pace, plus the checking and other stuff that goes on, I'd say is tougher then soccer, even if you are out there for 90 minutes.

 

[wr50l]

Never said football is a walk in the park, and I'd put it second to hockey in terms of toughness. Every time I watch soccer though, you see half the team walking or standing still. Where as hockey is always in motion, and it is end to end all the time. 20minutes of ice time in hockey at a high pace, plus the checking and other stuff that goes on, I'd say is tougher then soccer, even if you are out there for 90 minutes.

I'm talking about soccer (no hold on I'm not calling it that again, from now on when I say football I'm talking about the real thing that everyone in the world exempting North America knows it as)

Anyway back to the topic at hand, which is actually totally different to the original topic of the thread. You did describe football ^ as looking like "a walk through the park" Which as evidenced by a typical days of stats from ProZone (a data analysis company that specialises in sports) is a terribly incorrect perception.

As for the bolded bit - in hockey three quarters of the team is sitting on the bench! I am totally in agreement that hockey is far "tougher" however football is far more of a cardio killer. Prime example of the difference is that Pittsburgh just played Philadelphia tonight and will play Washington tomorrow, there is absolutely no chance a player could play two football games in two days.

 

[Ravin]

Thing is, there are lots of footballers (soccer) who play back to back on many different levels. My cousin plays D1 soccer in America and when they go on road trips, they play 2-3 games over the course of the weekend. It is a high level of competition and they play 2 games (sometimes three) in that many days.

There is a reason hockey players sit on the bench. Because when you are skating at a high pace for 1-2minutes, you get really tired. Add in being hit and checked, it takes a lot out on your body.

 

[killgod]

In soccer's defence, your typical hockey shift is only 45 seconds and most forwards play around 15-18 minutes per game.

15-18 minutes of action in a 2.5 hour contest....

*shrug*


I think soccer is tougher on cardio (actually, I can't see how anyone argues against that, especially based on the stats that wr50l provided), football from a pure strength perspective. however since hockey is still tough in both those areas (probably 2nd in both IMO) I'd say overall hockey is the more demanding sport I guess.

 

[wr50l]

Thing is, there are lots of footballers (soccer) who play back to back on many different levels. My cousin plays D1 soccer in America and when they go on road trips, they play 2-3 games over the course of the weekend. It is a high level of competition and they play 2 games (sometimes three) in that many days.

There is a reason hockey players sit on the bench. Because when you are skating at a high pace for 1-2minutes, you get really tired. Add in being hit and checked, it takes a lot out on your body.

D1 is college right? You cannot compare amateur to professional football, that is ludicrous. There is absolutely no comparison between college football and professional football on skill level nor required intensity. Terrible.

Skaters sit on the bench because you can only have 5 on the ice at once, they skate so hard because they can sit down once they're gassed. If football was played on a tiny pitch with less on the field and with rolling substitutions they would go at breakneck speed too. Likewise if hockey was played on a massive rink with more players and no rolling substitutions they would play at a more patient tempo. It's two entirely different ways to tire yourself out, neither of which should be belittled in favour of the other.