Tuesday, December 05, 2006

No schedule changes coming

The word out of the Board of Governors' meetings is that the current schedule format is here to stay.

No apology was offered for getting everyone's hopes up.


At 1:32 p.m., December 05, 2006, Anonymous rob said...

I'm apparently in the minority in that I'm glad the schedule stays. I guess I've never understood the outcry about the schedule in the first place; in this 30 team league there are 2 ways we can have it: an even mix schedule, playing each team on a roughly equal basis; have an unbalanced schedule and have divisions mean something during the season, creating (or recreating) rivalries.

I've been a critic of the regular season for ages, so to me anything that legitimizes the regular season and the (artificially created) divisions is a good thing. Otherwise if you have a schedule where you play every team equally...why even bother with divisions? Just lump all 30 teams together, take the top 16 at the end and have at it.

(incidentally, i don't endorse that at all. if it were up to me, i'd complicate matters even more...)

If an unbalanced schedule means I - as a Buffalo Sabres fan - never get to play against Jarome Iginla or Joe Thornton - too bad. I'd rather battle the Bruins 8 times and foster some good old hatred again.

At 1:47 p.m., December 05, 2006, Blogger Earl Sleek said...

Count me in that minority also. I don't care terribly about east-west games, as eastern teams don't compete with western teams in terms of standings.

Divisional games (because of the standings implications) are much more interesting to me, at least.

At 1:57 p.m., December 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...


My problem with the schedule isn't even the fact that the Leafs (for example) play the Senators eight times a year. Even though it feels roughly like eight hundred times a year at this point.

It's how it's set up. They played each other what? Four times in the first month? At this point, whenever I hear about that match-up, I just groan and am like "you again?"

It's getting that way with the Bruins, too. I'm tired of looking at them.

For me, some of my friends, and some of their friends on both sides, there's just this feeling like burnout when it comes to the 'rivalries'.

I personally wouldn't mind things as much if when they played each other eight times it was spaced out throughout the season.


At 2:48 p.m., December 05, 2006, Blogger Nick said...

I agree with Teresa. My main complaint is that it seems like I'm watching the Wings play either the oilers or the canucks every other game. Why can't they spread these games out a little more evenly throughout the season?

At 2:50 p.m., December 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Teresa. Although I would prefer a couple fewer divisional games and more games against the Western Conference I would settle for not playing a team 5 times in just over 4 weeks. The league would probably be better served by scheduling one meeting a month and one or two home and homes.

The other consideration is if people feel like Sleek then why even have Western teams meet Eastern teams during the regular season. It seems a bit unfair to have to compete against a stronger division (Pacific/Northwest) while a challenger for your playoff position could be facing the Central Division.

I am just surprised that the news implied that there would be changes and nothing came about. I guess in the new partnership in the NHL the fans draw the short end.

At 2:52 p.m., December 05, 2006, Anonymous Lammy said...

The NHL doesn't need to overhaul its schedule, but a few adjustments are in order.

Interconference games... Every team plays once against each of the other conference's teams. It's only fair. No advantage to teams that play more games against the other conference's 'weak' teams, and Stanley cup contenders get to suss each other out.

Playoff seedings reflect - with the exception of the divison leaders - conference standings, so reduce the number of divisional games to 6. Keep the number of intraconference games at 4.

So you have 15 interconference games, 24 divisional games and 40 intraconference games, for a total of 79.

I would also echo Teresa's comments on "spreading out" the games a little more.

At 3:31 p.m., December 05, 2006, Blogger Tom L said...

We had the system before the lockout where every team played each other at least once and I remember everyone complaining about it then...

"Who cares about a late season meeting between {insert sucky eastern team} and {insert sucky western team}? Give us more Mon vs. Tor dammit!"

If detroit fans don't want to play the Hawks 8 times a year, that's understandable, but, someone has to suck and right now it's the central division.

I'm with Earl, the Pacific, Northwest and Northeast5 have it great... those divisional games rock, while the Central and Atlantic games don't. Oh well, yell at Don McLean for being the worst GM in the League as opposed to the league in trying to mitigate the damage he causes.


At 4:22 p.m., December 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) It wouldn't matter what they did to the schedule, some one would be unhappy with the result
2) The status quo, warts and all, was the safest route for the owners to take
3) Travel issue will always be a problem for western teams no matter the schedule


Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker