Hockey Fan Forums banner

Should there be 8 or 6 division games each season?

  • Yes,change division games to 6 each.

    Votes: 7 100.0%
  • No,keep things the way they are.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This debate has been going on since half-way through last season. Should the new PA make it so you only play the teams in your own division 6 times each season or keep it at 8?

For example teams like Ottawa and Toronto only see Ovechkin,Gretzky,Thorton, and Western Canadien teams only once per. 3 seasons under the new NHL. On the other hand it creates a lot of buzz and media coverage when revals like the Leafs and Sens play each other. Should things be kept the way they are or should their be more of a veriaty for season ticket holders??:dunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,041 Posts
I don't mind the 8 games but when theres 4 games in one month it gets old. If they were more spread out it would be more entertaining. Although I would like to see more Western teams come here more often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,388 Posts
Amanda said:
I don't mind the 8 games but when theres 4 games in one month it gets old. If they were more spread out it would be more entertaining. Although I would like to see more Western teams come here more often.
I say 6!

And spread the 6 out!!

Yes, every team should see every team as well!!

Is it not one single league?
 

·
We Are All Canucks
Joined
·
2,485 Posts
I find it stupid that every team doesnt get to play 5 other teams in the nhl at all. At least i think its like that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
I don't mind this set up how it is now. It's bringing back the rivalries of the old NHL and making those games mean so much more in the divisional standings. That being said I hate how some Eastern teams basically spend their entire season only leaving the Eastern time zone one or two times while the Western teams are all over the place. After tonight's game in Calgary the Capitals won't leave the Eastern Time zone again until the Stanley Cup Finals if they make it that far. Compare that to Vancouver that will switch time zones 39 more times this season. Edmonton will make the switch 27 or 28 more times this season. Make the Eastern teams travel a little or scramble the two conferences up so each team will cross the country more often. MLB and NFL are going that way to make teams move around so why not NHL? Besides we already have two perfectly good conference names that we can dust off and they even have their own trophies to get at the end of the Conference Finals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
I agree with panoo, each team should play at least twice a season. The setup they have now is supposed to bring back rivalries,but I think rivalries are build in the playoffs rather than in the regular season.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
I do agree that you should play every team at least twice. Another problem I see is the way the playoffs are structured. Division games are just as important as conference games. For example if Toronto has a harder division than Atlanta they will have an advantage to beat out Toronto for that last playoff spot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
I find it highly annoying to have to wait a few years in order to get to see certain teams in the western conference that I like, playing in my city. Seeing the same team 8 times a year makes the rivalry lose it's edge and makes things redundant.

I definetly would like to see divisional games go down to 6 games per season. It's rediculous.

Case in point: Montreal vs Colorado.

Fans in that city will have to wait for a very long time before getting to see Theodore again. By the looks of their last game, this would be a great rivalry in the making, if it wasn't for the horrible schedule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,388 Posts
NHL should cut back on divisional games

League may be feeling heat from fans who don't get to see the likes of Crosby, Malkin or Ovechkin
Jim Matheson, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Wednesday, November 01, 2006


Q. Why did the NHL go to a more segregated conference format? Any chance to reverse it? I don't need to see the Oilers play Minnesota eight times in a season (no slight on the Wild). At the bare minimum, teams should have to play everybody in the league, no matter what conference, once at home and away. While amendments have been made for a better show, the change (more games in the conference) reduces the excitement value.

(Larry Landis)

A. When the lockout ended, the league wanted to get the fans back and thought rivalries (more divisional games) would be the magnet, so it had divisional foes meeting eight times (Oilers vs. Wild, Avs, Flames and Canucks in the Northwest Division). It also wanted four games against the other 10 teams in the Western Conference. That only leaves 10 games total, against the entire Eastern Conference.

This year, the Oilers play the five Southeast Division teams (Tampa, Carolina, Washington, Atlanta and Florida) here and they go to the Northeast Division to play Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Buffalo and Boston.

Last year, they had the Northeast in Edmonton and they played the Atlantic (New Jersey, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, the Rangers and the Islanders) on the road.

There's unsubstantiated reports the league might cut back on divisional and conference games next year to allow for games against everybody -- at least once because it's feeling the heat from fans out West who feel short-changed because they seldom see Sidney Crosby, Alexander Ovechkin or Eric Staal, and now Evgeni Malkin.

Fans back east, don't get a chance to see Dion Phaneuf or Kings' rookie Anze Kopitar, either.

The general managers might discuss it at meetings in Toronto Nov. 7.

There's a group of Eastern teams that like it the way it is because of travel and they claim their fans want to see Eastern teams only.

Former Philadelphia GM Bob Clarke went on Vancouver radio last year and said Flyer fans didn't care if they saw the Oilers, Flames or Canucks. They wanted Jersey and the Rangers, and lots of them.

The problem with revising the schedule is coming up with the right formula, if it stays at 82 games.

Take the Oilers for instance. Say, they only play the Northwest Division teams six times next year. That's 24 games.

Say, they play the 15 teams in the East home and away. That's another 30, or 54 in total. That leaves 28 games to be divided among the other 10 Western Conference teams. Not an equitable breakdown, at all, unless the season becomes 84 games and it's three games each against the Dallas Stars, Anaheim Ducks, San Jose Sharks, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,388 Posts
OLYMPIA STADIUM said:
Here in detroit fans get tired of seeing teams like Columbus and Nashville.
I guess they would, not only that, there really isn't any competition for them,
take last year for example, once the real competition came at them,
they didn't last!!

It's the same with Toronto/Ottawa, enough is enough already!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,041 Posts
I agree! As much as I like seeing the Battle of Ontario 4 games in one month is a little much in my opinion. When I went to the Calgary Ottawa game I was more excited about seeing a Western Conference team then being at the game at all. It would be so much better for the fans to see the conferences visiting each other more often then every 2 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Former Philadelphia GM Bob Clarke went on Vancouver radio last year and said Flyer fans didn't care if they saw the Oilers, Flames or Canucks. They wanted Jersey and the Rangers, and lots of them.
eh, Boobie was just spewing the party (NHL) line. Facilitating "rivalries" was just propaganda code for "let's save some bux and minimize the travel". Now that the NHL is very profitable again, it is time to abandon that less-than-exciting idea.

I agree with Nonis: Time to mix it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
I agree. We should be able to see every team at least once every year. 8 games within the division is way too much, especially when you have to play Minnesota and Calgary constently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,455 Posts
hok said:
eh, Boobie was just spewing the party (NHL) line. Facilitating "rivalries" was just propaganda code for "let's save some bux and minimize the travel". Now that the NHL is very profitable again, it is time to abandon that less-than-exciting idea.

I agree with Nonis: Time to mix it up.
Good call, I hadn't thought of the cost angle but there's probably some truth to that.

I don't mind the heavey divisional play so much because I like watching Buffalo, Montreal and Ottawa but I can understand why most would be against it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,444 Posts
If I had to choose between the two, I would choose 6, but I really think that is should be 5.

5 is how it was before 2004, and the NHL was about to leave for a year. Bettman suddenly decided to change that, and add in the extra.

I remember mostly how Toronto's schedule was like prior to this riculous change:

The Leafs played their divisonal teams -Boston, Buffalo, Montreal and Ottawa 5 times, for a total of 20 games.

They went on a Western Canadian Road Trip (Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver) once, and had a Western Canadian Homestand once, and had an extra random game to boot, for a total of 9 against those three teams.

That's 29 games in total.

Then there were the Original 6 teams: They faced Detroit 3 times, Chicago 3 times, and the New York Rangers 4 times. That's 10 games, making the total 39.

They played the rest of the teams in the Atlantic Division (Philadelphia, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, New York Islanders) around 4 times each as well, for 16 games. That's 55 games, leaving 27 to split between 16 teams.

Add in 2 games from the Southeastern team rather than 3-4, and that's 65.

Leaving 17 games between the rest of the West. From the Pacific division, they played San Jose and Phoenix 2 times, and Dallas, LA, and Anaheim 1 time. That's 7 games to make it 72.

In the Northwest, it was Colorado 1 time (always in Toronto, until last year when they finally played in Colorado for the 1st time since 1996), and Minnesota was either 1 or 2 times (I forget where). When adding in the 2 games, that would be 74.

In the Central, it was Columbus 1 time, Nashville 2 times, and St. Louis 4. That's 7 in total, for 81.

I guess I'm missing a game somewhere (most likely Minnesota). I could be shakey on a few numbers, but I think I mostly got it right. This is all from memory you know. ;)

Anyway, that's generally how the scheduling was for Toronto, and it was decent. Could it improve a bit? Sure, but what we're getting now isn't improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,455 Posts
/\/\/\/\

Wow. Nice post.

You're totally right though. That was so much better. You still had rivalries, maybe even more because it was possible to play a team a few team during the season.

I think it's safe to say that it won't be eight games next season.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,041 Posts
A league source told the Tribune there is a 90 percent chance the NHL will revamp its scheduling format for next season so every team plays the others at least once. The change is already on the agenda for next week’s general managers meetings. Should the suggestion pass there, it would have to be approved at the Board of Governors meetings in December to go into effect.
I found that in an article online. I guess complaining does pay off?
Coyotes lay an egg in Anaheim | EastValleyTribune.com
If you scroll down to where it says SCHEDULE CHANGES the rest of the article is there.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top