NJD Jester Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 I'm sure you've all seen this quote from the Ledger by now from our Conn Smythe Winner-In-Exile: "I'm a believer that we should stay in our own conference, and play [the Flyers] 12 times. It would be great for the fans, great for everybody to meet up with your rivals so many times. It would be good for the attendance." I'm a big believer that hockey lost a lot of its luster when divisional play was de-emphasized. I think 12 times a year is overkill, but could the NHL devise a schedule where the teams play each other 9 times inside of their own division? Wouldn't that increase gate all around, especially against those teams like Tampa and Toronto, who might then come to town just once a season? <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Well, think about this from Marty's point of view...if he plays the Flyers 12 times a years, that may be 12 guaranteed wins, the way things are going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Marty should keep his night job...math is not his thing. 14 conference opponents X 12 games = 168 games. He must've meant division, so that would be 12 X 4 = 48 games Leaving 34 games for Conference games/non-conference games. Even with 34 games vs. 10 non-division, Eastern Conference opponents it would mean no games vs. West (non-conference) and just a few vs. other divisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googer Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 (edited) If you don't care about inter-conference games, lots of rival games that work out math-wise are quite simple really; the quick example I thought of works out as an 80-game schedule: 10 games vs. divisional opponents (5 home, 5 away): 10 x 4 = 40 games 4 games vs. non-divisional conference opponents (2 home, 2 away): 4 x 10 = 40 games 0 against non-conference teams Voila. Edited October 31, 2003 by Googer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJayDevil Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Googer's plan is what the NHL should do. There's nothing worse than a cold January night game vs. Calgary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
point Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 I like Googer's plan too. About the only player who could be guaranteed to light up the scoreboard any night was Gretzky. If somebody gets tickets to see Iginla play, is there a really good chance they will see him score? Seeing the western teams maybe once a year doesn't add to anyone's enjoyment. By the time you figure out who is playing, the game is over and they are gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 i like googer's plan as well. positives for losing non-conference games -less travel time and costs (good for players and teams) -add luster to all-star game (east v. west is the only time you see other teams) -natural rivalries are juiced up negatives for losing non-conference games -same teams over and over can become repetative and boring to fans -no ability to see at least 1/2 of superstars in the league b/c your team never plays them positives far outweigh the negatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 well from a winning the cup stand point I'd refer not to have the Westcoast rival a complete stranger - I like the idea that you can sort of get your feet wet out there. i wonder of maybe - oh I dont' know... whatever i guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 well from a winning the cup stand point I'd refer not to have the Westcoast rival a complete stranger - I like the idea that you can sort of get your feet wet out there. i wonder of maybe - oh I dont' know... whatever i guess. I dunno, PK, it worked well enough in '95. They never saw a Western Conference team until the Finals. And then they only saw them for 4 games...all NJ WINS!!!! I could live w/that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 I guess -- like I said, whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 -no ability to see at least 1/2 of superstars in the league b/c your team never plays them Sunny, I agree with most of that statement. However, this inability to see the superstars is not legit, IMO. One gets to see the superstars all the time, be it on ESPN's or the satelite dish or whatever. Sure its not live, but its not like these guys will become strangers where you don't recognise them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 True GA Devil.. but there is still some fun in seeing your guys play them.. tell me the last time a Devils-Wings, or Devils-Stars or Devils-Blues game was boring.. they usually aren't !! And for all the complaints about who wants to see Calgary.. I sure don't want to play the Sabres and Panthers 12 times a year either.. Devils-Sabres games tend to be the most boring thing on Earth !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Hmm...perhaps they could convert it to Northern and Southern conferences so that we see more teams in the geographic west, and we get used to the travel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewarkDevil5 Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Heh, googer, I agree with you completely. But i've got you one better. Make it series based. See my post "another weird idea" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 this is the best way to get rid of some of the pains of overexpansion. Essenitally split the league in two, And make a world series type deal. i mean despite the quality of some west teams, i would not miss the entertainment found in playing those teams cause rivalries would just be so so much sweeter. The Ahl kind of does this, more for practical reasons than entertainment but i think it would work on the NHL level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Well, think about this from Marty's point of view...if he plays the Flyers 12 times a years, that may be 12 guaranteed wins, the way things are going. Add in the Isles and the Rangers and the Devils could dominate the league with those 36 games. Of course they'd only go like 6-6 against the Pens with Morozov scoring 13 points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.