Well, I realized today that I haven't posted here in some time...I really was hoping that my next post would read, "Well, they've got a CBA agreement, so let's play some hockey and give me something to write about!" Alas, the NHL keeps on getting my hopes up by holding talks and making proposals, but then you hear that the 'PA stormed out of those talks because the proposals were nowhere near acceptable. Unfortunately for me, I'm one of a dwindling number of fans who actually seem to miss the NHL-level game, and not one of the people who say "just cancel it, already." I don't care if they play a period and a half of hockey before the playoffs start, but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, GIVE ME SOME HOCKEY.

...Okay, a period and a half might not be enough to have what one might call a "meaningful season," which leads me to ask: exactly how many games do they need to make it meaningful? Some consider that number to be around 40; however, after the last lockout, they had a 48-game season, and I've heard people call that pointless/unmeaningful/tasty. (Okay, the "tasty" thing never came up.)

---NOTE---As I'm writing this, TSN is reporting that the NHL came up with a new proposal to the Union, and it's already been rejected. Quel surprise! Now, back to your regularly scheduled blogging...

At the moment, the NHL is rumoured to have scenarios planned out for seasons that could see between 25 and 35 games played, in the event that the lockout ended today. Some players see this as pointless; according to TSN, Brett Hull has already called it "ridiculous." Then again, Brett Hull likes to complain about things to get his name in the paper, so let's not pay him too much attention. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the season saw as few as 18-22 games: each team plays every other team in its conference once, except for teams in its division, which it would play twice or thrice. Of course, then the playoffs seem ridiculously long by comparison, so you run into a problem there. That could be solved by including only the top 4 teams in each conference - which once again creates another problem for those people who would like to see the hockey playoffs interfere with the baseball playoffs (or at least the baseball All-Star Game).

Another possible scenario is to hold a tournament for the Stanley Cup (I know, tournaments are all we've seen over the past year, but Lord help me, I like 'em). One game against each team in the conference, and the best eight records on each side advance to a single-game (or best-of-three, to make it a little less drastic) elimination round. Sure, there's lots of room for upsets in a format that's not as forgiving as the best-of-seven Stanley Cup Playoffs, but what's wrong with an upset? All it does is show us the fallibility of those teams that thought they were such hot stuff to begin with (see: 2002 Detroit Red Wings).


Readers, got any suggestions for what a possible season should look like if it started today? Either of you? That's what the Comments box is for, so go to town!