The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Sadly here is proof the owners never planned on hockey in December
Sorry, but you cannot revamp the schedule completely (30 teams, 30 arenas) in one week. The arenas aren't just sitting there waiting for the NHL teams, but have made bookings months in advance for concerts, maybe the NBA teams, if shared, and other events that come up.
I pointed that out in another post and explained that the contracts for other events specifically state that if the arena is needed for hockey, those events are moved or rescheduled.
Of course you can. Each team submits their available arena dates and the schedule writers work off of those available dates. Doesn't take that long to do.
I pointed that out in another post and explained that the contracts for other events specifically state that if the arena is needed for hockey, those events are moved or rescheduled.
I think these exclusions are limited to playoffs, which understandably aren't predictable.
You're also overlooking the logistical aspects of the scheduling. (Hint: look up Daly's comments on the potential realignment wrt to Winnipeg, or the relocation of Phoenix or Atlanta). The NHL has a cutoff date for teams to submit arena availability dates for upcoming season scheduling.
No it doesn't. It shows that owners book multiple things at their arenas. Nothing about this would've prevented a deal from getting done. A whole new schedule would've been drawn up anyways.
I think these exclusions are limited to playoffs, which understandably aren't predictable.
You're also overlooking the logistical aspects of the scheduling. (Hint: look up Daly's comments on the potential realignment wrt to Winnipeg, or the relocation of Phoenix or Atlanta). The NHL has a cutoff date for teams to submit arena availability dates for upcoming season scheduling.
So, your claim is that the 48(?)-game schedule played in 1994-95 was just a truncated version of the 82(?) game schedule originally set?
Interesting, as the original schedule had interconference play and the schedule as played was devoid of interconference games....
Face it, there's a major difference between the "normal" scheduling process you're talking about and the scramble to re-make a schedule after a work stoppage.
Now, the dates on the re-made schedule are LIKELY to be in alignment _as much as possible_ with the original schedule, for the reasons you're saying, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to make every team's home schedule identically mirror the original schedule in a reduced season. Trust me, I know this -- I've been through more than one mid-season schedule re-jigger due to teams folding at the minor-league level.
I think these exclusions are limited to playoffs, which understandably aren't predictable.
And, knowing in advance that a lockout was extremely likely (heck, I'm no expert and I knew this was coming the second I heard Fehr had been hired), it's possible that that exclusion was added to events during the regular season.
Also, is it not possible the league had multiple alternate schedules drawn up in advance that arena owners were able to use to book events, thereby having as few potential conflicts as possible?
Quote:
You're also overlooking the logistical aspects of the scheduling. (Hint: look up Daly's comments on the potential realignment wrt to Winnipeg, or the relocation of Phoenix or Atlanta). The NHL has a cutoff date for teams to submit arena availability dates for upcoming season scheduling.
I've got an appointment so I can't look it up. But realignment isn't happening this season and I highly doubt Phoenix is moving in the next month. That's a non-issue. I have in the past, however, pointed out that travel arrangements, etc., could be a logistical nightmare. However, in view of how quickly a new shortened schedule was implemented last time, this is clearly something the league has a contingency plan for because they managed to pull it off then.
The old schedule was going to be scrapped as soon as the first cancellation of games came down, so you can't use it genuinely as a reference for conspiracy theories.
My point is that even with a revised schedule the Rangers still would have played at home last night. MSG doesn't have that many open dates to play with. In 1995 the Bruins played on every home date they were supposed to and and then added dates when available.
It is a fair question to ask Bill Daly. Who gave Dolan the go ahead to rebook MSG over a week before the NHL released the date?
This is a big issue in the TV truck production business. 2 trucks were frozen ( one for MSG and the other for RDS ) and an extra week could have meant finding another booking for the trucks.
My point is that even with a revised schedule the Rangers still would have played at home last night.
Well, they would have if the revised schedule had a way to make it happen. I'm sure they would have tried, but it's possible that there would be no opponent that could have made it to NY to play that night.
So, your claim is that the 48(?)-game schedule played in 1994-95 was just a truncated version of the 82(?) game schedule originally set?
Interesting, as the original schedule had interconference play and the schedule as played was devoid of interconference games....
Face it, there's a major difference between the "normal" scheduling process you're talking about and the scramble to re-make a schedule after a work stoppage.
Now, the dates on the re-made schedule are LIKELY to be in alignment _as much as possible_ with the original schedule, for the reasons you're saying, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to make every team's home schedule identically mirror the original schedule in a reduced season. Trust me, I know this -- I've been through more than one mid-season schedule re-jigger due to teams folding at the minor-league level.
You're just flat out wrong here.
This is what the Bruins did with season ticket holders in 1995.
If a game was on say March 4h they would say ( use ticket dated March 4 or use ticket Game x from October/November )
They will use the same reserved dates - the team most likely will be different.
Well, they would have if the revised schedule had a way to make it happen. I'm sure they would have tried, but it's possible that there would be no opponent that could have made it to NY to play that night.
That argument can be made for out west but with all the teams within 500 miles of New York City you could find somebody and they likely still would have played Montreal.
That argument can be made for out west but with all the teams within 500 miles of New York City you could find somebody and they likely still would have played Montreal.
How the hell do you figure? Do the Rangers have some perverse deal where they're guaranteed a Wednesday night home game every week of the season? Everyone's known since the first game of the season was cancelled that a condensed schedule would have to be set up, and that would mean all new dates across the board. Even if such a schedule might have had them playing at home last night, they would've worked around it.
You'd be just as right claiming that scheduling anything besides NHL hockey ever suggests the owners never wanted to have any season over the last 75 years, because nobody works around conflicts.
I'm pretty sure the NBA created a new schedule for last year once they came to an agreement to end their lockout in late November last year and had a new schedule unveiled to the public by the first week of December.
I don't think it takes that long to figure out in this day and age honestly. I'd imagine it's mostly done by computer.
Something's wrong in society.. someone points it out.... CONSPIRACY THEORY.
EDIT:
It really bothers me that some of you blindly trust the intentions of certain men and institutions.. they want to make money. That's their primary intention. Something like this that the OP is bringing it up totally plausible.
That argument can be made for out west but with all the teams within 500 miles of New York City you could find somebody and they likely still would have played Montreal.
Maybe. But Montreal would also have to play Tampa & Florida. What if the only time they could play those two teams conflicted with that date in NY? Would they have sacrificed those two games, which could have been done in one trip & saved time/travel/expense, so NY & Montreal could play one?
It's not as simple as two teams playing each other. They've got to work it out so they play everyone else, as well. If one date has to change in one team's schedule, it's likely going to impact more than just the two teams involved in that one game.
further proof that the NHL owners had no intention of good faith negotiations to at least try and start the season on time was that when the NHL schedule was announced last summer, Hall of Fame Weekend in November which is a traditional Saturday night game in Toronto, oddly enough the Maple Leafs were scheduled to play a road game in Washington that Saturday evening and the NBA Toronto Raptors were booked to play a game in ACC and had been since the NBA schedule was announced last summer. The Raptors never and I mean never play a home game on a Saturday night, that is the exclusive right of TML, Saturday nights. This whole lockout was planned 2 years ago, schemed and planned by one Gary Bettman and the law firm they employ down to the very last detail, right down to that hissy fit Bettman threw for the TV cameras a week ago.
I had never considered the Raptors game but you are right - they are never ever scheduled on a Saturday night.
You don't just pick up with the schedule that was originally created.
Actually there was a lot of talk in the media that that was exactly what they would do - pick up at whichever point in the schedule they were at. That is gone now because the schedule has been significantly reduced, but that wasn't the case earlier.
Maybe. But Montreal would also have to play Tampa & Florida. What if the only time they could play those two teams conflicted with that date in NY? Would they have sacrificed those two games, which could have been done in one trip & saved time/travel/expense, so NY & Montreal could play one?
It's not as simple as two teams playing each other. They've got to work it out so they play everyone else, as well. If one date has to change in one team's schedule, it's likely going to impact more than just the two teams involved in that one game.
The games that will be lost are the out of conference ones and work from there.
My gut tells me the NHL has a 48 to 56 game schedule ready to go and when that date approaches the deal will be done.
I think these exclusions are limited to playoffs, which understandably aren't predictable.
And most likely lockouts that could end at any moment. I would be willing to bet that there was a clause regarding moving the concert date if the lockout had ended and the arena was required for the above mentioned game.
Actually there was a lot of talk in the media that that was exactly what they would do - pick up at whichever point in the schedule they were at. That is gone now because the schedule has been significantly reduced, but that wasn't the case earlier.
That makes no sense since the NHL would require a balanced schedule. Don't believe what the media is feeding you.
Compelling evidence to show how the NHL is operating on a predetermined timeline. You have to admire the overly buttered faux angry Bettman who put up a truly drama queen performance for our consumption.
The games that will be lost are the out of conference ones and work from there.
My gut tells me the NHL has a 48 to 56 game schedule ready to go and when that date approaches the deal will be done.
Yeah that's my feeling too, the NHL internally already has 48 and 56 game schedules basically ready to go, which could be quickly modified depending on a few dates if need be.
They probably have a 66 game version sitting somewhere too which obviously will never be used.
Pretty sure it was because after the first slate of games was cancelled the schedule would have to be rearranged anyways. So MSG would have just told them that date is booked up after. But you can try and make a conspiracy theory out of it if you really want to.
And most likely lockouts that could end at any moment. I would be willing to bet that there was a clause regarding moving the concert date if the lockout had ended and the arena was required for the above mentioned game.
Be pretty hard to move a concert named 12-12-12 to another date.
