NHL Schedule --- Like it or Dump it?

[batdad]

Hi guys. Not sure about starting a topic/poll. My first one.

Living out west many are dying for the NHL to change the schedule. Mr. Bettman and the board voted not to yesterday. Bettman has his two-thirds majority rubbish for owners to make any changes. The vote was 19-11 on the schedule change option. Freaking Montreal and Ottawa voted against a change. Edmonton ownership, like many other western teams are widdled. Some eastern teams...Toronto for example are also widdled.

Out here, Vancouver fans are upset...this not changing the sched means no Montreal, Toronto, or Ottawa vs Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver next season. (What will happen with hockey day in Canada? Two teams will have to play US teams that day. 4 games.) Also, only get teams in town once every three years. Meanwhile, in those three years we will see the Minnesota Wild 12 times in Vancouver. Chicago fans get the Preds, Jackets and Blues 8 times per year(4 home 4 away) Hey, how come the Hawks cannot make the playoffs Minty?

Yes rivalry is important, but do hockey fans really care about establishing a Florida vs Carolina rivalry? Not all rivalries are within a division/conference. Detroit-Colorado, Vancouver-Toronto, Carolina-Edmonton (heh..right) Rangers vs everyone, Leafs vs everyone. A change would only mean moving from 8 games vs own division teams to 6.

An example of the problem: Pittsburgh is due to play in Vancouver next season. What if Sid is hurt? Malkin? Guess what we then no see the Pens until after the 2010 Olympics. Sid may play his first game here in a Canada jersey. Malkin in a red, white and blue Ruskie uni. Sheesh.

This is not just a Vancouver situation, all teams are affected. No Ducks and Sharks for many out east..once every three years. No Thornton, Marleau, Cheechoo, Niedermeyer, Pronger, Kipper, Luongo, Sedin sisters, Cloutier, Avery...


Just looking to see what a broad base of population/hockey fans all across the globe think.

Yet with the sched the way it is, eases travel for Western teams. And makes sure the East does not have to leave its time zone very often. Once per year for most teams. One Western trip...sometimes to Detroit, Nashville, Columbus, Chicago and St Louis.

Not that fans opinions would matter to the Bettman anyway. But what do you think?

[CatchUp]

Bettman is a joke.

My buddies and I could run the league better than he is.

[crosby87]

I believe every team should play every other home and away every season, purely for the variety.

Don't get me wrong it's fun beating up on the Flyers all the time, but we don't need an unbalanced schedule to tell us where the rivalries are!

[B. Stinson]

Personally, I've always thought taking every team in the league and having them play eachother twice is the simplest, most balanced, and most logical way to do it. But the fact that they(NHL) keep taking the exotic route over the logical route is why I'm also voting for the "fire Bettman" part of the last choice.

[Shadd666]

What kind of champion are you if you don't battle against every team in the league?

Actually, 72 of the 82 regular season games are against only 14 opponents. That's to say 87.8% of the games against 48.3% of the opponents. That's just non-sense!

The way sports are run in europe is more fair. Every team will battle an equal number of times against every other team in the league. This way, all the teams have exactly the same opposition, and so they have the same chances to win the championship (in sports where there's no playoff system, like soccer or rugby) or have a high playoff spot (hockey, basket, etc).

If the NHL adopt such an equality, teams would have to fight every other teams 3 times in the season to have approximatively the same amount of games (29 opponents x 3 games = 87 games). But that means there will be 2 home games and 1 away game (or the reverse) against each team, which is not equal.

With 4 games against each opponent (2 home + 2 away), it should be 116 games, which is too much. But reducing the size of the league to 22 teams would solve the problem: 21 opponents x 4 games = 84 games. And a schedule equal for everyone!

Furthermore, less teams means a higher concentration of talents, which should only be good...

Only my thoughts though...

[Minstrel]

Funny how there is all this talk about changes until the actual vote comes down and unshockingly "No change, we'll look at it again after next year when our proposed three year plan is completed." Sure would be nice if there was a commissioner who wasn't just a puppet for the owners eh?

I agree though that this and the clusterfrink they call the Cold-FX/NHL All-Star Game brought to you by 2k Sports really lays the league pretty bear in that they have no vision and no plan for how to build or improve the game.

[bruins72]

I'd vote for the "fire Bettman option" if it didn't include moving all the teams to Canada. I'd like to see them have every team play each other at least once but it would be even better if they played each other twice, home and home.

[BruceM]

Ok, since everyone is against the current format, I'll vote to keep it as is so you guys have someone to pick on.


Seriously though, the idea of the regular season is to qualify for the play-offs. I like seeing the Habs/Leafs play each other 8 times a season. I like the idea of playing your division rival 8 times because those are the teams you have to beat to make the play-offs. 4 point games bring a lot of excitement. Same for playing other teams in your conference, those are the teams you have to beat to make the play-offs.

Let's be realistic here, the vast majority of people who watch hockey, watch it on TV. There's only 30 cities with teams, yet there are fans all across both Canada and the US. If you watch hockey on TV, especially with todays various options, you can watch Crosby, Ovechkin, Chechoo, Pronger, et al as many times as you like. I know, not every market has Centre Ice or multiple cable channels that cover hockey, but the big cities and even the moderate size cities do. Yes, it would be nice to see those guys up close and live once in a while, but it's not a game breaker for me. I love the sport of Hockey, and I watch an average of 10 - 14 games a week on TV. I live in Halifax, a long long way from a city with an NHL franchise. I'd be happy just to have the opportunity to go to a live game once in a while, I wouldn't care who was playing. For all you people living in NHL Cities, don't take for it granted, be thankfull that you have the opportunity to see live NHL action 41 times a year.


Someone said "What kind of Champion are you if you don't play everyone"? So I guess every Super Bowl Champion and every World Series Champion are not "Real" Champions since they didn't play everyone during the regular season.


The schedule works fine. The owners will never be in a hurry to change it anyway. Why? Because whether Sid the Kid comes to Vancouver once a year or once every three years, they're still selling lots of tickets. Having Crosby come by once a year isn't going to make a significant boost in their annual rink revenues.

[Shadd666]

Someone said "What kind of Champion are you if you don't play everyone"? So I guess every Super Bowl Champion and every World Series Champion are not "Real" Champions since they didn't play everyone during the regular season.

That's exactly what i meant!

I won't re-argue why, i've already gave my point of view on this subject.

[flea]

I absolutely dont like it and not only because my team plays in the toughest division of them all, but I think one of the nice things of the old schedule was that all teams play all other teams at least twice a year and its nice to see all the players play against your team.

In Boston, for example, they wont see old idol Joe Thornton until next year (at least as long as I know) and thats pretty sad!!!

[Minstrel]

I think the "won't see team X" thing is really blown out of proportion in importance and even then the only people that can really argue that are those who own season tickets.

That is why my vote actually was in conference games only. If you're going to get a free ticket to the playoffs for being the best in your division then you should have the beat your division to do it. Especially in the current day, team and conference strengths are all a matter of ebb and flow so if you you want to say it's unfair to have a schedule where certain teams get to play "easier" teams more often well that argument is set on quickly shifting sands. So make the one certainty be that you have proved without a doubt during the year that you are the best representative of hockey greatness your division has to offer and let the playoffs sort it out.

It's not like this is the NCAA tourney where you lose and you go home, you have 7 games to prove yourself and you have to repeat that four times to say you're the best and that is good enough for me. Earn your way in by being on of the best then prove you're the best of the best to be Champ. I like it like that. Though I'd like to see the playoffs re-seeded by overall season points at each round, that is the only fair compromise/accomodation to make for varying Conference strengths.

I also am in favor of paring back to a 65 game schedule with more days off to rest and practice and travel without arriving somewhere at 3am for a game the next day. Just watch the difference in quality of games there will be when teams come back from the AS break for example.

[noctambulist]

I don't have the Center Ice Package, but I watch almost every Bruins game and sometimes games on Versus. So I'm almost like a season ticket holder with free seats who gets to watch the game in his pajamas and has a couple of guys behind me talking during the whole game.

Anyways, I think the whole idea behind all the Division games was to spice up the rivalries. More games against each other means more bad blood, so they thought. But they failed to realize that most rivalries develop in the playoffs, not during the regular season. What has resulted is just seeing the same games played between the same teams over and over again. I like seeing the Bruins play other teams once in a while. It seems like every other game we are playing Toronto.

If the point of the NHL's governing body is to bring in new fans, then playing the same 4 teams over and over again isn't going to do it. Most people (and I might go as far to say ALL people) who are not big fans of hockey yet, do not have Center Ice Package to be able to see all games played on any given night. Center Ice Package subscribers are the choir, they don't need to be preached to. But someone in a Western Conference team market, might have heard of this kid Sidney Crosby and might want to tune in a hockey game on their local sports channel because they heard on the news that his team is coming to town. That person may become a fan of the game.

[Minstrel]

I don't have the Center Ice Package, but I watch almost every Bruins game and sometimes games on Versus. So I'm almost like a season ticket holder with free seats who gets to watch the game in his pajamas and has a couple of guys behind me talking during the whole game.

Ya see that's exactly why Wirtz won't let home games be televised, because you are devaluing the season tocket holders investments by getting the same thing they are paying for for free! In your pajamas you aren't paying for parking or booze so you don't have the right to see that game. That's the real problem here.

But anyway...

But someone in a Western Conference team market, might have heard of this kid Sidney Crosby and might want to tune in a hockey game on their local sports channel because they heard on the news that his team is coming to town. That person may become a fan of the game.

The sport did fine in gaining fans back when Gretzky didn't play in every arena every year.

[batdad]

Really? And I Could have sworn that until the last 2 years before the lockout teams played each other every season, and in there own barn at least every 2.
The league even made special "rivalry games" which had the Canucks play the Habs or Leafs for 2 or 3 games each year. Really not sure about the "sport did fine in gaining fans back when Gretzky didn't play in every arena every year". Most of his prime was spent playing in every arena..I am sure. At least once per year. I may be wrong about this..but I think my memories are clear.

But anyway, the marketing aspect of having big stars play everywhere should be pushed and pushed hard. I really find this " the schedule we have now is to build rivalry" stuff is B.S. Canucks-Flames-Oilers rivalry yeah they are big.
But come on guys, 8 games vs 6 games. I don't think 2 fewr games will hurt the rivalries any. Sorry, but it won't. So rivalries cannot be used as an arguement. Especially when cross-conference rivalries exist. Tor-Det, Van-Tor, Mon-and every western team, NYR-Chi, Chi-Tor.

Joe Sakic is speaking out saying we need to do away with this schedule. When was the last time anyone heard him say anything? If he is saying something, clearly there are alot of players out there who want it to change back to the old way.

Besides, to me there is nothing better than the old Tor-Chi hate. Especially when both teams suck. They are such fun games to watch, because both teams stand a chance of winning. Gary Leeman was awesome! And oh man, Yawney on D was a god.

And whohoo!! The poll is up to 70% in favour of playing at least 1 game against all teams. to Minty!!!! (oh, and if you add in the protest vote even higher)

[noctambulist]

The sport did fine in gaining fans back when Gretzky didn't play in every arena every year.

Maybe that is true, but how this could possibly hurt the league escapes me. As a fan of Original 6 teams all my life (the Hawks and the Bruins) I miss seeing the Blackhawks and Redwings every year.

Now we all here can admit that we all are pretty much the choir here. We all live, eat, drink, and breathe hockey. My girlfriend is much more the example of the casual fan and I think more of the target that the NHL would like to bring in as a regular fan. We were looking at the schedule to see what Bruins games we wanted to buy tickets for. Which games was she most interested in? The Rangers because of Jagr, Pittsburgh because of Crosby, and Toronto because of Sundin (luckily we play Toronto every other game ). Like it or not, for a casual fan, these are important decision factors. I want to see Buffalo, but she doesn't know any of their names.

[BruceM]

Have to say I found this not only surprising, but almost unbelievable. While reading my latest edition of THN, it was revealed that during Pittsburghs only visit to Washington this season, there were 4000 empty seats. (yes, that's four thousand)

I guess the fans in Washington aren't too concerned about the best players coming to town more often.

[crosby87]

Washington's fans are terrible though, what attendances would they be getting without Ovechkin?