Takes and trash talk from both ALL sides of the NHL's most obscure PATHETIC* rivalry

* Thanks, Kevin Lowe!

Thursday, July 19, 2007

An Idea

A lot of people in the hockey world complain that the hockey season is too long.They complain that by the time a champion has been crowned, it’s June and most people haven’t seen snow or ice in a couple of months. Every year there’s an article about how the season should be cut down to 72 games, or 60, or 10; I say fuck that noise. I believe just the opposite; the season needs to be at least 10 games longer.

Why must the season be lengthened, you ask? Well, for one, we need hockey. If you follow hockey every other sport seems to be played in slow motion. I mean, sure, I like baseball, but have you ever tried to watch a game from beginning to end? It’s like watching a hockey game, but if every player was Chris Chelios. Some people might get burned out by all that hockey; I call those people pussies. Think about it: if the season went until the middle of July, we’d have the rest of July and August to do the draft and free-agency, and then bam, pre-season.

Thirdly, we’d see more teams. Imagine if they added 18 games to the schedule, bringing the season up to 100 games. Along with all the Western Conference games that we already see, those 18 games can be used to give the fans more games against Eastern Conference opponents. I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather see Sidney Crosby and Ilya Kovalchuk once than Keith Ballard for the 8th time.

You don't think he could play another 10 games?


Some people might argue that the players would be tired and beaten down if the season were that long, to which I reply: fuck ‘em. They get paid millions of dollars to play a kid’s game; they can handle a little pain. I don’t get 3 months a year off for my shit job, so why should they? If anything, it’d cut out the weaklings (read: Europeans) and we’d get real men playing again. Besides, tennis players, golfers, and NASCAR drivers go all season, so why shouldn’t hockey players?

So there you have it. A longer season equals more hockey, therefore my argument is infallible. For those of you who still disagree, think about this: if the season was longer, you wouldn’t get stupid articles like this one

8 comments:

Earl Sleek said...

You know Rudy, sometimes I think you can read my mind. Not so much about the topic itself, but in the way you present it.

I say fuck that noise.

I call those people pussies.

Literally just days after I vent about how tame BoC has become (it got a PG from the site BoA recommended), I was going to encourage us to step up, swear more in posts, and get out of the internet's kiddie region.

But somehow you already had this figured out. Nice.

Karina said...

Hahahaha, love it.

Besides, I live in Canada. By June I'm happy if the snow has melted!

Anonymous said...

thats a great idea! i cant stand this long offseason GO KINGS!

Anonymous said...

Tight until I got to the bottom I was thinking this was Earl. Nice. O also even the people getting the league minimum are making more that people that go to the games.

Nick S. said...

How about hockey double-headers? Now THERE'S a good idea!

Also, more meerkat pictures!

RudyKelly said...

Earl, I want you to remember what you just said when I'm comparing Scott Thornton's playing ability to diarrhea.

Earl Sleek said...

Hey, nobody gets diarrhea for two years!

Knock yourself out, though. :)

dbushik said...

I think every team should play in every building every year. Okay, but there are ways to easily do that without extending the season.

Just one example: 2 games against each out of conference team, 3 games against in conference but out of division teams, 5 games against division rivals. 80 games.

Another simple solution is actually addressing the root cause of the problem and contracting the league. There are easily six teams in this league that unless they are winning Cups have no real support are not economiclly viable. Eliminate them, get the talent level back up a little, and return to the two conference and two division set-up.

2 games against out of conference, 4 games against out of division, and 7 games against division rivals makes for 83 games.

I honestly don't think you can be serious with suggesting going to 100 games. If you are, you are completely out of touch with the reality of what players want or can even physically handle.

I mean, I'm totally willing to say the suggestion of eliminating teams is unrealistic, even if it does actually address the real problem here. But I have to say, going to a 100 game season is even more unrealistic.

Being nuts is a bit entertaining to read, but you can't be serious and be in touch with reality on this one.