Write Conclusion Following Assignment Help: How to Answer This Question

This type of question evaluates analytical and critical thinking skills.

What This Question Is About

This question relates to write conclusion following and requires a structured academic response.

How to Approach This Question

Use appropriate theories and support your answer with clear reasoning.

Key Explanation

This topic involves write conclusion following. A strong answer should include explanation, application, and examples.

Original Question

write a conclusion to the following academic argument paper: In the competitive realm of professional sports, the National Hockey League (NHL) stands as a beacon of intense physical activity and passionate fan engagement. However, an often-overlooked aspect of this sport is the substantial risk of injury that players face, particularly during the preseason games. Injuries have far-reaching implications not only for the athletes personally but also for the teams, the league, and the sport’s commercial health. The preseason structure, which typically includes many exhibition games prior to the regular season, is meant to prepare teams and players. A preseason laden with games increases the likelihood of injuries, diminishing player availability for the regular season???a period with higher stakes and viewership. This essay argues the policy proposal that the NHL should reduce the number of preseason games due to the considerable risk of player injuries. The overarching objective is to enhance player safety, optimize team performance in the regular season, and ultimately sustain the league’s competitive appeal and longevity. Through an examination of injury statistics, player performance and career longevity, player opinions, and the feasibility of implementing fewer preseason games, the argument will underscore the critical need for policy change. This proposal not only addresses a pressing concern for players but also benefits team management and the league as a whole. Injury statistics in the NHL highlight a pressing need for revising the current preseason schedule to better protect player health. According to Pinkoski et al. (2024), there was a noticeable shift in injury and illness trends in the NHL following an abrupt cessation of play. This study underscores the inherent risks associated with the current number and scheduling of preseason games, which may exacerbate player vulnerability to injuries. Complementing this, Anderson et al. (2019), explored the epidemiology of ice hockey injuries, revealing that the intensity and frequency of preseason games significantly contribute to the overall injury incidence in the league. Such statistics indicate an urgent need for intervention to reduce potential harm. Preseason injuries have profound implications on player performance and career longevity. Research by Tuominen et al. (2015), on international ice hockey injuries reveals that injuries sustained in preparation stages not only disrupt player readiness but often result in long-term adverse effects on player performance. To reinforce this argument, Ehlen et al. (2023), found that modified game schedules can significantly reduce injury rates in the NHL. The data suggest that players exposed to intensive preseason schedules are more vulnerable to injuries that impair their ability to perform consistently during the regular season and potentially shorten their careers. Currently, the existing number of preseason games contributes directly to these health risks. The rigorous demands of multiple exhibition matches increase the likelihood of overuse injuries and acute trauma, as players aim to secure their positions and demonstrate peak performance ahead of the regular season. This situation is compounded by the limited recovery time available between games, leading to a higher incidence of both minor and severe injuries. Players are thus placed in a precarious position, where maintaining career longevity conflicts with the immediate demands of demonstrating competitiveness. Addressing these issues by reducing the number of preseason games is essential. It aligns with protecting player health and ensuring the sustainability of athlete careers in the long term, fulfilling a critical need within the NHL framework. Thus, a reduction in preseason games is not only necessary but essential to safeguarding player health and enhancing career longevity, as demonstrated by extensive research findings. By implementing such changes, the NHL can significantly decrease injury rates and promote a safer, more sustainable environment for its athletes. The NHL should reduce the number of preseason games from the current average of six to four per team to mitigate the risk of player injuries. This proposal addresses a critical need within the NHL framework to protect player health without compromising the league’s operational and business objectives. To efficiently implement this change within the current NHL framework, a phased approach is recommended. Initially, a pilot program can be introduced where, a select number of teams are limited to four preseason games over one or two seasons. Two preseason games are utilized for establishing team chemistry and performance evaluation, while the third and fourth game should focus on fine-tuning tactics (i.e., lines/defensive pairings), and addressing individual player development needs. This change would still allow adequate time for teams to evaluate player performance, observation, and analysis of impacts on player health, team performance, and make necessary roster decisions. During the transition period, the NHL should engage team coaches, players, and stakeholders, to ensure that the shortened schedule still accommodates all tiers of player development and evaluation. Logistically, the NHL can adjust preseason schedules across three to four weeks, with games spaced out to allow substantial rest and practice, promoting player fitness and team cohesion. By using targeted, data-driven simulation training and scrimmages, teams can effectively prepare for the regular season without excessive physical strain and the risk full-scale games pose. The reduction in games can be compensated by increasing marketing events and training camps, which provide similar revenue and fan engagement opportunities without the physical toll on players. Ultimately, this reduction can be seamlessly integrated within the current NHL framework without compromising the league’s competitive balance or commercial interests. One of the strongest arguments for reducing the number of preseason games in the NHL centers on the potential for injury reduction. Evidence from Ehlen et al. (2023) in Cureus suggests a tangible link between fewer preseason games and a decrease in player injuries. The study analyzed NHL player injury reports over several seasons, specifically examining the correlation between the number of preseason games and injury rates. The findings indicate that high-intensity play in preseason games contributes significantly to early-season injuries due to players not yet being in peak physical condition. By reducing the number of these games, teams can decrease the exposure to in-game injury mechanisms such as body checking and high-speed collisions, which are more prevalent in the competitive environment of preseason matches (Ehlen et al., 2023). Additionally, the reduction of preseason games aligns with injury trends observed during periods of play cessation or modification, as discussed in Pinkoski et al. (2024). Their research in the International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy evaluated scenarios where atypical schedules did not include lengthy preseasons. Their findings revealed a reduction in injury rates, supporting the hypothesis that a streamlined preseason positively affects player health and readiness for the regular season. This change not only mitigates the risk of injury but also improves players’ performance and longevity by ensuring that they enter the regular season in optimal health. A critical component of the NHL’s preseason schedule is its potential impact on player and team preparedness. The argument for reducing the number of preseason games, while ensuring players and teams remain or become even more prepared for the season, is strongly supported by both players and research. According to Rutherford (2024) in The Athletic,many players express a preference for fewer preseason games, citing the potential for the same or even improved levels of readiness. Players argue that a shorter preseason could reduce the risk of unnecessary injuries while allowing them to focus on more intensive, targeted training and conditioning that prepares them more effectively for the competitive demands of the regular season. The feedback from players indicates that their preparedness is not necessarily dependent on the quantity of games played, but rather on the quality of their preparation and their ability to avoid burnout and injury prior to the season’s commencement. Pierre LeBrun (2024) adds that this proposal also holds managerial support, with executives suggesting that advanced analytics and enhanced training camps can effectively prepare teams without the necessity of extended play schedules. In sum, the feasibility of reducing preseason games is bolstered by medical research and the practical adaptability of players and teams, making it a compelling policy proposal for the NHL to adopt. In addressing potential counterarguments regarding team preparedness and revenue loss, it is crucial to acknowledge that these concerns are valid but can be effectively mitigated. Critics argue that reducing the number of preseason games might compromise team readiness and result in financial losses for the league and participating teams. However, evidence from Rutherford (2024) illustrates that many NHL players and stakeholders support a shorter preseason, albeit with conditions, partly due to concerns over player well-being. While fewer games might initially seem to detract from preparation time, it is important to consider how modern training techniques and preseason training camps can effectively build team dynamics and skills without the need for excessive gameplay. This change would still allow adequate time for teams to evaluate player performance and make necessary roster decisions. Incorporating more controlled scrimmages and practices, which pose less risk than full-scale games. A few players have expressed concerns about reducing preseason games and what that could mean for their roster spot. In The Athletic, Zach Dean whose a forward prospect for the St. Louis Blues stated “You have a lot of guys at camp, so those games are important…if there’s only three preseason games, the vets are going to want to get at least two games in before the start of the season, and it’s going to be tough to get the young guys in.” (Rutherford, 2024). Zach brings to light an important concern that could make a lot of players lean against this change. However, Wild goalie Filip Gustavsson stated, “I think if they decrease the number of (preseason) games and you feel rookies aren’t getting a chance to make an impression, you should increase the rookie camp right before main camp instead, … then you know who could actually take a spot and just bring those players in. Then you don’t need as many games.” (Rutherford, 2024). The potential solution Gustavsson mentions could work. Especially, in terms of re-enforcing the idea of playing more controlled scrimmages and practice that pose less risk to full-scale games, which is something that is a concern some coaches have. Coach Mike Sullivan shares his thoughts: I think the biggest challenge is we put these guys in games three days into training camp in some instances, Penguins coach Mike Sullivan said. I mean, how could a team possibly pull itself together and play a game three days into training camp? Yet, that’s what we do. I’m not sure that makes a lot of sense. (Rutherford, 2024) Another counterargument to take into consideration is the financial impact this policy would have on not just players and owners, but the league. Though, this concern could be partially counterbalanced by extending the regular season, thus maintaining or potentially increasing overall revenue through more meaningful games. The big discussion going on amongst players in the NHL is whether or not adding games to the regular season to make up for the loss during the preseason is necessary. Most would agree that it wouldn’t be, but what if it brought in more revenue? Obviously, that’s where the main deciding factor will fall: In terms of 84 games, I would have to see how that would affect the bottom line – if guys are going to end up getting paid more, Killorn said. I know the owners take a lot of the money in the preseason. If we’re going to play those games anyways, might as well get paid for them. It’s all a calculation. It’s all based on revenue. If we did play those two games, we would have higher revenues. How that would affect contracts? I don’t know. I just don’t want to get into a situation where it’s, OK, 84. What about 86? That’s where I get a little worried. (Rutherford, 2024). Any player would arguably agree that you may as well get paid and make more money for the work you’re putting in. In “Hockey business is booming as the NHL bounces back from the pandemic in a big way,” highlights the NHL’s significant recovery post-pandemic, noting record attendance, increased viewership, and revenue reaching an estimated $6.2 billion annually. (Whyno, 2024). Regarding potential revenue impact, reducing preseason games could lead to lost revenue from ticket sales, concessions, and broadcasting rights. However, the NHL’s recent financial success suggests that the league might be exploring ways to optimize the balance between preseason length and overall profitability. Again, hitting at preseason game reduction and training camp length to more regular-season games, which could very likely enhance fan engagement and revenue. Obviously, fan engagement is arguably an important aspect to revenue, but another big factor of revenue to consider is player contracts. How would the decision to shorten preseason games affect contracts? Especially considering the NHLs new decision to skyrocket salary caps. In “Will skyrocketing NHL salary cap lead to a new era of haves and have-nots?”, Pierre LeBrun highlights the financial implications of a rapidly increasing salary cap in the NHL. Figure 1 shows the planned salary cap increase that is driven by escalating hockey-related revenues (HRR), which encompass earnings from ticket sales, broadcasting rights, and other sources. (LeBrun, 2025). A large contributor to HRR is the revenue generated from preseason games. For instance, during the 2012 lockout, the NHL reportedly lost close to around $100 million in revenue due to the cancellation of the entire preseason schedule. However, if preseason games were to be reduced this could mitigate the risk of player injuries that these games often see a higher incidence of injuries among key players. If regular season was to be extended to 84 four games rather than the standard 82, it could offset the potential revenue loss from fewer preseason games. This aims to maintain, potentially enhance, the overall revenue, as regular games typically draw more significant attendance and viewership. References Anderson, G. R., Melugin, H. P., & Stuart, M. J. (2019). Epidemiology of Injuries in Ice Hockey. Sports health, 11(6), 514-519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738119849105 Ehlen, Q. T., Costello, J. P., 2nd, Wagner, J. D., Cohen, J. L., Baker, L. C., Rizzo, M. G., Jr, & Kaplan, L. D. (2023). The Effects of Modified Game Schedules on Injury Rates in the National Hockey League (NHL). Cureus, 15(10), e46898. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.46898 LeBrun, P. (2024, October 3). Should the NHL preseason be shorter? how it could work and what top execs say. The Athletic. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5813829/2024/10/03/nhl-preseason-shorter-execs/ LeBrun, P. (2025, January 31). LeBrun: Will skyrocketing NHL salary cap lead to a new era of haves and have-nots? The Athletic. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6103703/2025/01/31/nhl-salary-cap-revenue-sharing/ Pinkoski, A. M., Davies, M., Sommerfeldt, M., Eurich, D. T., & Voaklander, D. (2024). Injury and Illness Trends in the National Hockey League Following an Abrupt Cessation of Play. International journal of sports physical therapy, 19(12), 1560-1568. https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.125738 Rutherford, J. (2024, October 10). Do NHL players support a shorter preseason and longer regular season? yes, but with conditions. The Athletic. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5818115/2024/10/10/nhl-players-regular-season-preseason/ Tuominen, M., Stuart, M. J., Aubry, M., Kannus, P., & Parkkari, J. (2015). Injuries in men’s International Ice Hockey: A 7-year study of the International Ice Hockey Federation Adult World Championship tournaments and Olympic Winter Games. British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/49/1/30 Whyno, S. (2024, April 16). Hockey business is booming as the NHL bounces back from the pandemic in a big way. The Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/hockey-business-is-booming-as-the-nhl-bounces-back-from-the-pandemic-in-a-big-way/

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."