NHL working toward shorter schedule

[Elias Sports Bureau]

It's a great scam to pull on us now while we're visioning no hockey at all.

Maybe they DO have some smarts in that office. Nahhhhhh.

[langsgirl]

I dont have much of a preference on this - I lvoe hockey.. but if I had to deal without it 2 extra months id try to survive.. however, I really do enjoy tailgating in May and June... so that would definitely be a negative

[sheeps]

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED

[poohbear]

I like the idea. Less competition with the almighty NFL.

Edited April 25, 2004 by poohbear

[NJD Jester]

There has to be a happy medium between an all-conference schedule and the current format. It's counterproductive not have Toronto and Montreal visit Calgary and Edmonton. It hurts the league to not have Dallas, Detroit and Colorado visit the Flyers, Rangers and Devils at least once. Under the proposed format, there can never be another SCF rematch unless both teams advance to the finals the following season.

HOWEVER, if the plan is to ensure more divisional games, then I'm for it. I'll miss the chance to see Detroit and Iginla at the Meadwolands, but I'll take the plunge for two-three more games against the Ranger$ and Flyers.

<JESTER>

['7']

The NHL used to be a league that didn't build it schedule around the NFL.

gutless pukes

[CRASHER]

this is CLASSIC NHL Shortsightedness defined... how many times do we need to see

the Thrashers and Panthers play in one freaking year too ??

and oh booo hooo your wittle body hurts from wear in tear in your $3 million home and

your $6 million salary SUCK IT UP DEEK !!!.. maybe if the players wore less

farooqing body armor and RESPECTED EACH OTHER it won't be as brutal as they are

whining like 5 year olds about

I'm tired of this crap... give me my 82 games and I wanna see ALL 30 arenas EVERY

SEASON... enough of this bullsh!t

['7']

this is CLASSIC NHL Shortsightedness defined... how many times do we need to see

the Thrashers and Panthers play in one freaking year too ??

and oh booo hooo your wittle body hurts from wear in tear in your $3 million home and

your $6 million salary SUCK IT UP DEEK !!!.. maybe if the players wore less

farooqing body armor and RESPECTED EACH OTHER it won't be as brutal as they are

whining like 5 year olds about

post of the month!!!

[CRASHER]

I just realized how much I sounded like Don Cherry there

[Triumph]

The NHL doesn't need to cut down from 82 to 72.. 76 would be a better compromise, I think.

I can see why New Jersey fans would complain about this, they travel the least of any team every year. It's the back to back games, with travel, that have to go, and a reduction of the schedule would help. I don't like starting the season later; they should have a slow start to the season, and try to end the season a week or so earlier. I'm tired of seeing Cup Finals on bad ice because it's 90 degrees outside and they can't air condition the building properly.

I wouldn't mind not seeing the West, since the Western teams always play back to backs with the Rangers, Islanders, or Flyers the previous or next night, the level of play just isn't there. Same with when we go West.

I don't like what it would do to the statistics. I still think it's a good idea to cut out some games.

['7']

The NHL doesn't need to cut down from 82 to 72.. 76 would be a better compromise, I think.

I can see why New Jersey fans would complain about this, they travel the least of any team every year. It's the back to back games, with travel, that have to go, and a reduction of the schedule would help. I don't like starting the season later; they should have a slow start to the season, and try to end the season a week or so earlier. I'm tired of seeing Cup Finals on bad ice because it's 90 degrees outside and they can't air condition the building properly.

I wouldn't mind not seeing the West, since the Western teams always play back to backs with the Rangers, Islanders, or Flyers the previous or next night, the level of play just isn't there. Same with when we go West.

I don't like what it would do to the statistics. I still think it's a good idea to cut out some games.

from 82-72 is too drastic a cut too quickly

the bad ice has been a problem forever, from the Garden and Aud days when the finals were earlier. Doesn't matter when its played, some buildings even the newer one's get humid right around springtime. Sometimes the ice is crap because they host too many events.

I say keep 82 games. Start the regular season October 1, end the regular season at around April 13. That way the games are spaced out and the players get more of a rest. Then you can have the playoffs start on april 16-17.

I also don't think the quick faceoff helps out the wear and tear. Brodeur commented on that a few months ago. Stupid rule. Games are not as good, and teams are too tired in the 3rd period. Probably one of the reasons we're seeing so many shutouts.

Edited April 25, 2004 by '7'

[devilsfan26]

I agree with '7'. Start the season sooner, and end it later. Sounds good to me. I don't know if there is too much they can do to help the quality of the ice, but if the players get too worn out, I say cut down on the back-to-back games and end the inter-conference games. They should keep the 82 games.

One downfall of the end of inter-conference games is that I think the standings probably won't be so close when we get to the end of the season, because there will be more Devils-Penguins games, Flyers-Panthers games, and Senators-Hurricanes games.

[MissionHockey]

I don't like this idea much either. I think instead of taking away games, you take away 4 seeds from the playoff format so that only the top 6 teams in each conference make it in. There are a lot of mediocre teams making the playoffs and I feel that the playoffs should be for the more elite teams.

[Derek21]

When the NHL began, it was very different. Back in '21-22, there was just Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Hamilton.

They played a 24-game schedule. So, imagine playing just 24 games and having a player score 32 times and dish out 14 assists. That speaks for itself. It's what Ottawa's Punch Broadbent did.

The 24-game schedule increased to 30 in '24-25 when the Montreal Maroons and Boston Bruins were added. Toronto's Babe Dye recorded 38 goals and 8 assists. Not too shabby.

In '25-26, they went to a 36-game schedule that included Ottawa, the Maroons, Pittsburgh, Boston, the NY Americans (New York's first hockey team), Toronto and the Habs. The Maroons' Nels Stewart paced the league with 34 goals and 8 helpers and 119 PIM.

By '26-27, they went to a 44-game format and formed the first two divisions. The Canadian Division (how original) consisted of Ottawa, Montreal, the Maroons, Americans and Toronto. The American division included the New York Rangers, Bruins, Blackhawks, Pittsburgh Pirates and the Red Wings. The Rangers' Bill Cook led the league with 33 goals and 4 assists.

They would go to 48 games in '31-32. At the time, the Habs, Maple Leafs, Maroons and Americans were left in the Canadian division while the Rangers, Blackhawks, Red Wings and Bruins made up the rest of The Original Six in the American division. Toronto's Busher Jackson paced all scorers with 28 goals and 25 assists. A teammate by the name of Joe Primeau was second with 13 goals and 37 assists.

The 48-game schedule would last through the rest of the decade until '42-43 when they went to 50 games. By that time, the only competitors left were The Original Six. Chicago's Doug Bentley topped all scorers with 33 goals and 40 assists. He edged Boston's Bill Cowley by a point. Cowley finished with 27 goals and 45 assists.

The Original Six would go to 60 games in '46-47. Chicago's Max Bentley beat out the Habs' Rocket Richard for the Art Ross with 72 points (29-43-72). Richard scored an unbelievable 45 goals with 26 helpers.

They would increase the schedule to 70 games in '49-50. Now, keep in mind, this was just six teams playing each other a ton of times without much travel. The Wings' Production Line went 1-2-3 for the scoring title that year. Ted Lindsay finished with 78 points (23-55-78). Sid Abel had 34 goals and 35 assists and a kid named Gordie Howe had 35 goals and 33 assists. Oh, and Maurice Richard finished fourth with 43 goals, 22 assists and 114 PIM.

The 70-game schedule would run from '49-50 to '66-67. By that time, scoring had increased. The Hawks' Stan Mikita came withing three of the century mark with 35 goals and 62 assists. Teammate Bobby Hull finished second with 52 goals and 28 assists. The year before, Hull was the first to 97 points with 54 goals and 43 assists. Finishing third in the final season of The Original Six was Detroit's Norm Ullman with 26 goals and 44 helpers.

In '67-68, the first expansion had taken place. They formed two divisions. The East consisted of the Original Six while the West contained Philadelphia, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Minnesota, Pittsburgh and Oakland. They played a 74-game schedule with Stan Mikita leading all scorers with 40 goals and 47 assists. A guy by the name of Phil Esposito on Boston finished second with 35 goals and 49 assists.

They would go to 76 games the following season and that's when three players finally topped the 100-mark in points. Esposito exploded for 49 goals, 77 assists for a league record 126 points. Bobby Hull was second with 58 goals and 49 assists for 107 points. Gordie Howe was third with 44 goals and 59 assists for 103 points.

They moved to 78 games in '70-71. Esposito had a league record 76 goals and 76 assists for 152 points to lead everyone. A guy by the name of Bobby Orr had an insane 37 goals and a league record 102 assists for 139 points. He was a defenseman . John Bucyk had 51 goals and 65 assists for 116 points. And teammate Ken Hodge finished with 43 goals and 62 assists for 105. All played for Boston.

They played the 78-game schedule until '74-75. That's when they had enough teams to move to a four division format. The Wales Conference had the Norris division and Adams while the Campbell had the Patrick and Smythe. Yes, this was the original format:

Norris- Montreal, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Washington (why ever would they have LA with all Eastern teams?)

Adams- Buffalo, Boston, Toronto and California (even worse)

Patrick- Flyers, Rangers, Islanders and Atlanta Flames

Smythe- Vancouver, St. Louis, Chicago, Minnesota and a team called the Kansas City Scouts

They played the first ever 80-game season. Seven players topped 100 points (Orr-135, Esposito-127, Marcel Dionne-121, Guy Lafleur-119, Pete Mahovlich-117, Bobby Clarke-116 & Rene Robert-100).

They didn't realign the divisions until '81-82. By that time, the Norris had Minnesota, Winnipeg, St. Louis, Chicago, Toronto and Detroit. The Smythe consisted of Edmonton, Vancouver, Calgary, Los Angeles and the Colorado Rockies. They all represented the Campbell. In the Wales, you had Montreal, Boston, Buffalo, Quebec and Hartford in the Adams. And in the Patrick was the Islanders, Rangers, Flyers, Penguins and Capitals. Btw, that year, a kid named Wayne Gretzky scored 92 goals and added 120 assists for 212 points. The 92 goals are still a record today.

They kept the 80-game format until '92-93 when they switched to 84 games. They went back to 82 in '95-96 and haven't changed it since.

And that's the history of the league in terms of how the games played and teams increased. I hope you all enjoyed it. For myself, going down to 72 games wouldn't be so bad. They did it before. Why not try again?

[LizDevil30]

I think if the NHL playoffs got bigger jump on the NBA playoffs it would help. It would benefit the sport if their playoffs were the only game in town, at least until the third round.

[RowdyFan42]

I say take it down to 80 games first, and reduce (but don't totally eliminate) inter-conference play. Yes, it's only 2 games, but with less travel you may be able to spread the games out a little more, especially if you adjust the starting and ending dates. I think Triumph suggested 76 games; if 80 doesn't work, 76 should be the next step, but we shouldn't need to cut it down any more than that. Of course, if we end up losing some teams during a protracted layoff, a shorter schedule may be required.

[Devil666]

I don't like this idea very much. There are many factors I think the league is failing to see when coming up with this decision. First from a personal stand point I enjoy going to the CAA to see the Avs, Wings, Oilers etc. It means nothing to me playing the Rangers 8 times. Over the last few years the appeal isn't there for me anymore. I used to be totally pumped to play them now it's just....oh we play the Rangers tonight. And I can really do without having to play the Pens, Canes etc....more than we already do. I do like the idea of playing the Flyers, Leafs, Sens, Bruins more so there is a bit of a double edged sword. But never seeing a team from the West unless you make the Finals is just wrong.

But here are a few things that I think make for a bad idea by the NHL.

1. Say the Coyotes do draft Ovcheckin. And he does become the type of player everyone is projecting. Other than TV we will never have a chance to watch him live. IMO this is murder for the league because there are elite players in both the East and West that us as fans will never get to see live.

2. Instead of playing most Western/Eastern teams twice why not play each other once a year. Example if in 2004-05 the Devils visit SJ in 05-06 SJ visits NJ. You can alternate years so fans can still see teams they enjoy watching.

3. Classic goalie match-ups like Brodeur/Roy will be no more. I used to love watching these 2 battle. Now even though Roy is no longer playing those types of matchups which add some excitement to the regular season are gone.

4. Not having the Canadien teams face each other just seems totally insane. Edmonton would never see Tor/Ott/Mon and vice versa.

Just think of all the great players in both Conferences that the fans will never get to see play live again. I just think it's bad for a league that is struggling with a fan base to begin with. You are now limiting who they can pay to see. No other sport does this. Hockey with all their troubles shouldn't be the one to start it.

Why not do a baseball/football type deal? You can play one division from a opposing conference every few years?

04-05 NJ can play the Pacific. 05-06 Central 06-07 NorthWest and just rotate that.

Just my 2 cents but I think this is a bad idea for the league.

[RowdyFan42]

Why not do a baseball/football type deal? You can play one division from a opposing conference every few years?

04-05 NJ can play the Pacific. 05-06 Central 06-07 NorthWest and just rotate that.

That's actually not a bad idea. Good job!

I also like the idea of having one game against every single team. You can alternate the home teams to keep it even. (Play in Calgary one year, host the Flames the next season, lather rinse and repeat.)

How about this:

  32 = 8 games x 4 division opponents
  40 = 4 games x 10 conference opponents
  15 = 1 game  x 15 out of conference opponents
+ 1-3 "rivalry" games (non-division opponents you may have a rivalry with)
-------
  80-82 game season

Or maybe this:

  28 = 7 games x 4 division opponents
  40 = 4 games x 10 conference opponents
  10 = 2 games x 5 out of conference opponents (one division)
+ 2-4 "rivalry" games
-------
  80-82 game season

[eldon]

I was thinking the same thing, just rotate one East division play one West division each year, then I thought, pity the poor division in the West who has to play the southeast division.

Even though Tampa & Atlanta are pretty exciting, I don't think they'd bring in any extra fans.

[El Diablo]

Why not do a baseball/football type deal? You can play one division from a opposing conference every few years?

04-05 NJ can play the Pacific. 05-06 Central 06-07 NorthWest and just rotate that.

That's actually not a bad idea. Good job!

I also like the idea of having one game against every single team. You can alternate the home teams to keep it even. (Play in Calgary one year, host the Flames the next season, lather rinse and repeat.)

How about this:

[Zamode]

Ten games less is a big difference. I don't mind hockey in May, June is kinda late (ice conditions, as Rock said) but I don't have a problem with the interconference games and I think they are a good idea. I always look forward to any Dallas or Detroit games at home. There are alot of issues with the NHL that need to be resolved but I don't think who they play or how long they play are the most pressing issues...

[djstubbs]

I think every team should play eachother @ home and away once per season for east vs west teams.....

[djstubbs]

On the realistic side this is what I think:

6 x 4 = 24

10 x 2 = 20

16 x 2 = 32

---76 Game season.

[TK]

Just when I thought Bettman ran out of ideas to screw up the NHL, he conjers up this idea.... what a waste, shouldn't they be improving the game?

[Sarge18]

On the realistic side this is what I think:

6 x 4 = 24

10 x 2 = 20

16 x 2 = 32

---76 Game season.

Stubbs since when is it a 32 team league?

Anyway, i like the idea if playing each team from the other confrence once, that at least keeps some interleague play but puts the emphasis on games vs your own confrence. One cannot take away interleague play entirely, and having to play the bottom feeders from your own confrence instead of the big draws from the other isnt a grand indea from the owners perpective either. There are a lot of ways for the owners to lose a lot of money with less games.