More. Always more.
No more workouts. No more competitions. More matches. This is the major trend in several sports, from soccer to football to tennis.
The NFL recently added a team game to its annual schedule. MLS, a new tournament. F1 has three more races than before the pandemic. In baseball, American pitchers train 11 months a year from adolescence. Tennis players? They reached the plateau of 10,000 matches on hard court in five years less than half a century ago.
In this frantic race for revenue and performance, a league has decided to go in the opposite direction. To slow down, by reducing the number of matches. This circuit is in our backyard. It’s the Maritimes Quebec Junior Hockey League (QMJHL).
Starting next season, its teams will play 64 games per season. This is four fewer than currently. Eight fewer than 25 years ago.
“The number of games is a recurring debate, which comes up every five years,” explains the commissioner of the QMJHL, Mario Cecchini. In 2018, the league conducted a survey of players, parents, coaches, general managers and owners from eight organizations. The majority of respondents – between 56% and 71%, depending on the group – wanted a lighter schedule.
In the following months, coaches carried this idea forward. This is the case of Patrick Roy, who described as a “crap schedule” that of his Quebec Remparts, who returned from Baie-Comeau at 5:30 a.m. on a Thursday morning, and were forced to play games on Friday and Saturday… during school year.
Despite the poll results, the league preferred the status quo.
Five years later, Mario Cecchini replaced Gilles Courteau at the head of the circuit. “This file quickly appeared on my desk,” says the new commissioner. When he learned of the survey, he sought to understand what had happened in 2018.
This was before the pandemic. The consumption habits of spectators were different. “There was also a desire to be aligned with the two other Canadian League circuits. » Clubs from the Ontario and Western leagues also played 68 games in the season. However, in the first weeks of his mandate, Mario Cecchini had new regulations adopted on fighting, which punished players here more severely than those from the other two leagues. So it was possible to be “different”. When he asked questions, he quickly understood that no one was adamant about a 68-game schedule.
“The circuits do not all have the same geography, or the same challenges at the academic level. » Mario Cecchini therefore reopened the file and began a discussion with the owners. “We measured the impact on the business. Could we manage the drop in ticketing revenue? I was told that it was not an issue. »
PHOTO MARTIN TREMBLAY, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
Mario Cecchini, commissioner of the QMJHL
The more the commissioner talked about it, the more he realized that deep down, a reduced schedule “didn’t really bother anyone”. The important thing, he was told, was to stay in a range above 60 games. “Canada provides the most players to the National League draft. Obviously, there is a notion of talent. But there is also a belief that playing 60 games or more prepares you better for the NHL. We are proud to say that we are a mini-NHL. Our calendar must align with this preparation. Except that between 72, 68, 64 and 60 games, we are in the same waters. »
The idea of reducing the season by four games was therefore resubmitted to the owners. This time, it was adopted – unanimously. It is mainly the midweek matches that will be eliminated.
“A schedule of 64 games will allow us to almost always play on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and public holidays,” underlines Mario Cecchini. So less travel during school days, in the middle of the week. There should only be four or five games left per team to schedule from Monday to Thursday. No one should lose out. Let’s be honest: it’s a lot harder to sell tickets for a game on a Tuesday evening than on a Saturday afternoon.
“In my first tour, I realized that a dozen teams were already very open to the project. This was especially true for the teams that traveled the most. Those who make the least money saw it as an opportunity to rationalize expenses, to achieve a better balance. It all made sense. I don’t want to sound like a politician, but yes, we really put the player at the center by reducing the burden. »
And how did NHL scouts react to this announcement? “There was no impact. »
None ? Not even a little fear expressed about the reduction in reps (repetitions) for the development of hopes?
” Nothing. If we had gone down to 40 games, we would have had a lot of reactions. But beyond 60 games, no, there is no impact. At least it didn’t come to my attention, and quite frankly, I think the general managers would have warned me. »
Like what the reps, It’s good. But rest, too.