what about 81, 72 or 63 if they start late next season?
- Feeling_Glucky

So you agree that winning a Cup in an 82 game season is exactly the same as winning one in a 48 games season.

Good, now we know where you stand, and you're entitled to your opinion.

I guess you feel the same for a full and a half marathon as well then?

So you agree that winning a Cup in an 82 game season is exactly the same as winning one in a 48 games season.

Good, now we know where you stand, and you're entitled to your opinion.

I guess you feel the same for a full and a half marathon as well then?
- Doppleganger

I asked u, if it's less than 82 is there an asterisk required?

Lebron won SI Sportsmen of the year in a lockout shortened season.

No, I wouldn't.

Winning the Cup after a 48 game season, is not equal to a team winning it after an 82 game season. It's not "a true measure" of a team, and all that goes into a full season and playoffs.

Is winning a full marathon the same as winning a half marathon?
- Doppleganger

Only 82 games count?? You are aware that they only started playing 82games in 95-96 right?? So the only wins that count are those of the last 16 years???

They played 84 games, 80 games, 78, 76, 74, 70, 60, 50, 48, 44 games previously. All those don't count??


It's so absurd that the length of the season dictates how true the win was. Totally untrue. All teams competing under the same rules.

So you agree that winning a Cup in an 82 game season is exactly the same as winning one in a 48 games season.

Good, now we know where you stand, and you're entitled to your opinion.

I guess you feel the same for a full and a half marathon as well then?
- Doppleganger

Check history, and get back on this issue.

You know that the MArathon and half marathon are 2 distinct disciplines right?? terrible analogy.

Only 82 games count?? You are aware that they only started playing 82games in 95-96 right?? So the only wins that count are those of the last 16 years???

They played 84 games, 80 games, 78, 76, 74, 70, 60, 50, 48, 44 games previously. All those don't count??


It's so absurd that the length of the season dictates how true the win was. Totally untrue. All teams competing under the same rules.
- burn

exactly

I asked u, if it's less than 82 is there an asterisk required?

Lebron won SI Sportsmen of the year in a lockout shortened season.
- Feeling_Glucky

The topic of this thread is quite clear, if you want to discuss the equality or inequality of an 81 game season vs an 82 game season, then please feel free to start another thread.


We already know that you feel there is absolutely NO difference, to you, between a Cup won after a FULL 82 game season, and a shorten 48 game season, you've already said as much in this thread.

Right now there are a number of players who are playing regularly in the AHL , KHL and in other European leagues. If they come back to play in a 48 game season, they will well ahead of those players who have been "shaking locally" and will need some time to get up to "game speed" as we've seen in years when players miss training camp ( for whatever reason) and re-join their team with the season in progress.

A shortened season will see a number of players not return to the NHL, as they will re replaced by younger players who've been playing in the AHL.

In short a 48 game season will not be the same, when compared to a full season if the MORONS who can't get a deal done, had done so in the summer.

I have a different opinion than you, BUT I realize that your life mission, is to take an opposite position to anything I post here, no matter what the topic is.

That's something I can't help you with.

Only 82 games count?? You are aware that they only started playing 82games in 95-96 right?? So the only wins that count are those of the last 16 years???

They played 84 games, 80 games, 78, 76, 74, 70, 60, 50, 48, 44 games previously. All those don't count??


It's so absurd that the length of the season dictates how true the win was. Totally untrue. All teams competing under the same rules.
- burn

Don't be foolish. I NEVER said cup wins "don't count". Those are your words.

I know it's a hard concept for you to wrap your head around. But I simply asked if other people think an 82 game season and Cup win is equal to a 48 game season and Cup win.

I even boiled it down to a simple example, comparing a full to a half marathon, for those posters who would a difficult time understanding that I feel an 82 game season with all it's travel, trades, injuries and whatever else, is not the same when reduced to a 48 games season.

I'm sorry you had a problem grasping the concept.

Don't be foolish. I NEVER said cup wins "don't count". Those are your words.

I know it's a hard concept for you to wrap your head around. But I simply asked if other people think an 82 game season and Cup win is equal to a 48 game season and Cup win.

I even boiled it down to a simple example, comparing a full to a half marathon, for those posters who would a difficult time understanding that I feel an 82 game season with all it's travel, trades, injuries and whatever else, is not the same when reduced to a 48 games season.

I'm sorry you had a problem grasping the concept.
- Doppleganger

So simple it's stupid....... terrible analogy.

So simple it's stupid....... terrible analogy.
- burn

Don't be foolish. I NEVER said cup wins "don't count". Those are your words.

I know it's a hard concept for you to wrap your head around. But I simply asked if other people think an 82 game season and Cup win is equal to a 48 game season and Cup win.

I even boiled it down to a simple example, comparing a full to a half marathon, for those posters who would a difficult time understanding that I feel an 82 game season with all it's travel, trades, injuries and whatever else, is not the same when reduced to a 48 games season.

I'm sorry you had a problem grasping the concept.
- Doppleganger

And I pointed out that in the history of the NHL they've played 48 games season previous. FYI the NHL has had seasons less than 50 games More times than 82 games. 19 times with 50 or less games compared to 16 games with 82.


EDIT: Those 19 seasons do not include the 95 shortened season.

And I pointed out that in the history of the NHL they've played 48 games season previous. FYI the NHL has had seasons less than 50 games More times than 82 games. 19 times with 50 or less games compared to 16 games with 82.
- burn

I blame global warming.

- Feeling_Glucky

Might as well be saying instead of playing hockey, we'll play basketball.

So simple it's stupid....... terrible analogy.
- burn

So you feel a player, who's been through a full 82 game season, with all the travel and practise time included...............is in the exact same physical and mental condition as one that has only played 48 games, with less travel and practising.


Interesting, perhaps then the owners should shorten the season to 48 games from now one, save a whack of money in players salary, as the outcome of a 48 game season, in your opinion, is exactly the same as an 83 game season.

Same thing then with marathons, they could reduce the distance to one mile and the outcome would be exactly the same right?

Might as well be saying instead of playing hockey, we'll play basketball.
- burn

- Feeling_Glucky

what about Bill C-377 ???

So you feel a player, who's been through a full 82 game season, with all the travel and practise time included...............is in the exact same physical and mental condition as one that has only played 48 games, with less travel and practising.


Interesting, perhaps then the owners should shorten the season to 48 games from now one, save a whack of money in players salary, as the outcome of a 48 game season, in your opinion, is exactly the same as an 83 game season.

Same thing then with marathons, they could reduce the distance to one mile and the outcome would be exactly the same right?
- Doppleganger

Your analogies are terrible........


check history. 82 game season is the 2nd least amount of times used.

> 50 = 19 times (plus the 95 lockout season)
60-70 games = 21 times
70-80 games = 7 times
80 games = 18 times
> 80 games= 18 times

the first 65 years are irrelevant? only the last 18 years matter? gotcha.

Your analogies are terrible........


check history. 82 game season is the 2nd least amount of times used.

> 50 = 19 times (plus the 95 lockout season)
60-70 games = 21 times
70-80 games = 7 times
80 games = 18 times
> 80 games= 18 times

the first 65 years are irrelevant? only the last 18 years matter? gotcha.
- burn

A 48 game season means intense playoff type hockey from opening night to the awarding of the Stanley Cup.

Also means that the contenders and pretenders are separated very quickly, perhaps by the first twenty games.

Expect monster trades after the first month of play. The biggest winners might be the the teams that take the long term view and deal established players (even stars) for picks and/or prospects. Remember 2013 is projected as a monster draft.

Don't be foolish. I NEVER said cup wins "don't count". Those are your words.

I know it's a hard concept for you to wrap your head around. But I simply asked if other people think an 82 game season and Cup win is equal to a 48 game season and Cup win.

I even boiled it down to a simple example, comparing a full to a half marathon, for those posters who would a difficult time understanding that I feel an 82 game season with all it's travel, trades, injuries and whatever else, is not the same when reduced to a 48 games season.

I'm sorry you had a problem grasping the concept.
- Doppleganger

IMO it is a good analogy, but incomplete. The full or half marathon would then have to be followed by, say, a 10K swim.

I disagree that the accomplishment is much different, as the playoffs remain the same format. But it does make a huge difference to the teams. A 48 game schedule might be more intense/compressed, but it doesn't tax the older players as much as an 82 game schedule, as a result, an older team MIGHT have a better chance to win in a shortened season. While ultimately talent and determination is what wins in the playoffs, what is left in the tank when they start also plays a factor.

IMO it is a good analogy, but incomplete. The full or half marathon would then have to be followed by, say, a 10K swim.

I disagree that the accomplishment is much different, as the playoffs remain the same format. But it does make a huge difference to the teams. A 48 game schedule might be more intense/compressed, but it doesn't tax the older players as much as an 82 game schedule, as a result, an older team MIGHT have a better chance to win in a shortened season. While ultimately talent and determination is what wins in the playoffs, what is left in the tank when they start also plays a factor.
- ght120

Good points, made by someone who "gets" the intent of the thread.

My point all along is that a Cup win, in a 48 game season, is not equal to a Cup win after an 82 game season. Some teams start strong, and fade in the later stages of an 82 game season, while other teams get stronger as a season progresses.


Apples on Oranges are both fruit, but are not exactly the same, as some seem to contend.

Didn't even know sportsclub had archives. That's cool, thanks.

So yeah, basically that proved me wrong. That supports the argument that a shortened season cheapens a cup win imo. I still think a cup win is a cup win regardless but knowing some of the recent cup winners likely would not have made the playoffs had they played in a shortened at least makes it a good argument for people who disagree with me.
- daeth

"Cheapen" may not be the best choice of words to differentiate the two Cup wins. There are a lot of different variables that go into preparing for, and progressing through, an 82 game season. Quick starting a season after this lockout would see players at different stages of "game readiness" depending on what they've been doing fro the past few months. Teams with more players playing in other leagues would more than likely have a leg up on those with fewer.

It's a Cup win, regardless, but I would view it in a different light than one after a regular 82 game season.

One constant thread through the last few months, is that the NHL would want to at least salvage a 48 game season.

I don't know about you, but I would not equate a team that wins the Stanley Cup after a 48 game season, with one that was won in the (now) traditional 82 game season. To me it wouldn't mean as much, and I suspect the players would not regard it (a Stanley Cup Win) in the same light either.

An asterisk would be there, regardless if it was visible or not.
- Doppleganger

Several reports indicate that a season as long as 52 games could be played if a new CBA is in place prior to Jan. 11, thus adding millions of dollars to the 2013 revenue pie.

How about 52?

A 48 game season or 82 game season does not change the way I would view the team that won the cup. All the teams know the schedule before the season starts, so everyone can adjust thier training, work ethic, how hard they play in Game 1 instead of game 49 etc...

I think its silly to say the winner of an 82 game season + 16-28 playoff games is a lesser team than one that won in a 48 + 16-28 game playoff

What if a Team played 82 games + 16 playoff games, 98 total games or a team played 48 + 28 playoff games, 76 total games... Does it really change how you feel about the winner? total games played is whats important?

i think this whole thing has been a joke so why not end in a shortended season?

its the same. The playoffs are still the same war.... probably helps i think the season should be shorter every year

how many people care or even remembered that the devils won the cup in a shortened season?

not me.