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.
That's the only way. The travel is killer during a typical regular season. I can't imagine what it would be like in a compressed season without swapping conferences.
I feel for Winnipeg, Columbus, Detroit - that's A LOT of travel in a short time, hope these guys don't mind jet-lag.
Plus, some western conference teams do a lot of travelling so they'll be running around too.
That's the only way. The travel is killer during a typical regular season. I can't imagine what it would be like in a compressed season without swapping conferences.
I agree.. The Jets were already screwed last year, no reason to make it worse for them by playing only in the east and 4 games a week. I would prefer Nashville in the southeast division but that'll never happen.
If anything, a schedule where you only play within your conference lends more credibility to the standings.
I kind of agree with you, because the playoffs final is the best in the Western conference vs best in the Eastern conference. I wouldn't want that for all seasons though.
I feel for Winnipeg, Columbus, Detroit - that's A LOT of travel in a short time, hope these guys don't mind jet-lag.
Plus, some western conference teams do a lot of travelling so they'll be running around too.
The issue is these teams don't get the time to PRACTICE during the regular season that other teams do. That's hurts a young team or a team with a new coach/system more than a veteran coach with an established system.
it sucks for Winnipeg fans, basically. That's the vibe I'm getting from the thread.
True enough. But not just for Winnipeg. People in Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver ( and all the people that travel to those cites) love watching the Leafs, Habs, Bruins, Flyers, and Pitts ( for the younger fans). Its a big deal to get to see those teams for a lot of fans. Can we put up without seeing them for 1 season? I guess.
In Winnipeg's case it will be 2 seasons without seeing:
Detroit, Chicago, Vancouver, Calgary, and a couple of others
Interesting thing is because we didn't have the NHL for 16 years, there are a lot of fans of the other teams in the NHL. Had to cheer for someone.
I feel for Winnipeg, Columbus, Detroit - that's A LOT of travel in a short time, hope these guys don't mind jet-lag.
Plus, some western conference teams do a lot of travelling so they'll be running around too.
Even though they shouldn't be, Columbus and Detroit are Western Conference teams. You made it sound like they're not.
Compared to Dallas, Winnipeg has it easy. Dallas has 3 division rivals 2 time zones away, and a conference that spans 4 time zones. Even road trips in the East are easy for Winnipeg, since they play all the cozy little divisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg
True enough. But not just for Winnipeg. People in Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver ( and all the people that travel to those cites) love watching the Leafs, Habs, Bruins, Flyers, and Pitts ( for the younger fans). Its a big deal to get to see those teams for a lot of fans. Can we put up without seeing them for 1 season? I guess.
In Winnipeg's case it will be 2 seasons without seeing:
Detroit, Chicago, Vancouver, Calgary, and a couple of others
Interesting thing is because we didn't have the NHL for 16 years, there are a lot of fans of the other teams in the NHL. Had to cheer for someone.
Teams haven't had to play home and home against every other team for a while now. At this point in time, in the reality that we currently find the NHL in, is it really that big of a deal?
A short schedule where teams play only against the teams that they'll need to beat out for the playoffs is the only way to go. If anything, a team like Winnipeg should be happy not to be in the West if they have a season this year. Travel is going to be(my optimism for today) terrible.
As a Winnipeg fan I prefer the east. Earlier games. No need to stay up til midnight watching a game finish. More interesting teams (imo of course). No complaints from me playing in the East another year.
Question. If they have, say, a 48 game schedule, do they whipe out the previous made up schedule?
Yes. It would be an entirely new schedule. The way they say games upto such a date are cancelled is misleading. In reality the day they couldn't fit in an 82 game schedule the whole thing would have to be re-written.
Question. If they have, say, a 48 game schedule, do they whipe out the previous made up schedule?
Almost assuredly, as they'd erase the All Star Game from the schedule, would seemingly get rid of interconference games (if one of the rumors I heard was true), and probably would have to condense the schedule a tad to make up for lost time even with significantly less games being played.
True enough. But not just for Winnipeg. People in Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver ( and all the people that travel to those cites) love watching the Leafs, Habs, Bruins, Flyers, and Pitts ( for the younger fans). Its a big deal to get to see those teams for a lot of fans. Can we put up without seeing them for 1 season? I guess.
In Winnipeg's case it will be 2 seasons without seeing:
Detroit, Chicago, Vancouver, Calgary, and a couple of others
Interesting thing is because we didn't have the NHL for 16 years, there are a lot of fans of the other teams in the NHL. Had to cheer for someone.
I'm still not seeing how the schedule is not close to balanced. Did you miss my earlier question?
If anything, it's more balanced than the usual schedule.
Yes. It would be an entirely new schedule. The way they say games upto such a date are cancelled is misleading. In reality the day they couldn't fit in an 82 game schedule the whole thing would have to be re-written.
Figured but wasn't sure if they'd keep most Conference games or division games.
Compared to the "current" (uncancelled) games on the schedule, I'd guess that "home" games may be "the same" (but perhaps a different opponent), but away games may or may not be the same opponent.
They do have an ASG "break" they can fill in with games.
I'm still not seeing how the schedule is not close to balanced. Did you miss my earlier question?
If anything, it's more balanced than the usual schedule.
Even today with 82 games the scheduled isn't balanced. And by that I mean a schedule where every team plays a home and home against every team ( 29x2 = 58 .. so you see every team in your building at least once ) and the remainder made up with conference play. This way you get to see all the teams and all the stars, every year.
With a 48 game schedule against only teams in your own conference, I just don't think of that as "balanced".
Sorry, just a difference in what I would like to see and consider a "balanced" schedule to be.
Does anyone ever really complain about (or put an asterisk beside) New Jersey's win in 1995?
Too many people, or at least they did until 2000. If I had a dollar for every time I heard or read 'Half a Cup' in those days I could fund the darn pension plan...and yet nobody ever kills the Spurs winning during lockout seasons in the NBA. Ironically there actually 'would' be a bit more of a reason to get on the soapbox this time if the NHL agrees on the one-time playoff expansion. At least the '95 playoffs were the same as they'd been.
Being reduced isn't the problem, it's the fact that the schedule isn't even close to being balanced. At this point in time, some teams are going to have a lot harder time making the playoffs in their conference VS the teams in the other conference. JMO but I see the Eastern Conference being a more difficult group of teams VS the teams in the Western Conference.
Doesn't really matter I guess if you don't mind winning the Cup and always having an Astrix besides your name.
Another issue is that a lot of people out west grew up watching and being fans of the Eastern teams, and they would like to see them.
How would the schedule be less balanced than it ever is? I thought you were objecting because of the number of games teams would have to play each week, and with the Regular Season not ending until late April.
Add In: Oh, as some have mentioned, if you're complaining because it sucks even more so for Winnipeg, Columbus, and Detroit fans... Well then, you should be complaining about the alignment, not the scheduling, and that somehow the League still hasn't figured out at least some basic realignment to get Winnipeg in the West.
Actually, I don't think I understand your point about Eastern and Western conferences at all. Why is it any harder for an Eastern Conference team to make the playoffs in a 48 game schedule playing only against other Eastern Confernece teams than it would be for that team to make the playoffs in an 82 game schedule against both conferences?
Does anyone ever really complain about (or put an asterisk beside) New Jersey's win in 1995?
I had never heard anyone even entertain the notion until the last couple months.
As for this "balance" issue. Either I am right, or I am taking crazy pills, because doesn't playing an entire season exclusively against the teams with whom you are competing for positioning (as opposed to playing X number of games against teams who you are not directly competing with for position) only legitimize the final standings even more?
