HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Islanders
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The "New" Schedule

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2006, 08:27 PM
  #1
Eman Resu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the woods
Country: Tibet
Posts: 1,668
vCash: 500
The "New" Schedule

I was surprised to hear Howie say during tonight's game that this was the last Islander game of the YEAR that would be played out of the eastern time zone.

I like the rivalries, I'm happy to see the Rangers more and to see lots of Crosby and Malkin (but not too happy). But overall I'll miss playing the Western teams more. I'd love to see Phaneuf on Calgary and Thornton on San Jose...

Just wondering how everyone else feels about the "new" schedule. Do you like seeing more Eastern Conference teams at the expense of not seeing the Western teams AT ALL?

Eman Resu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2006, 08:47 PM
  #2
Hunter07
Registered User
 
Hunter07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Long Island
Posts: 7,787
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Hunter07
the only plus i see in playing more west games is losses wont hurt as much because they wont be in competition for playoff spots.

I would love to see Thornton and Phanuef and the other players out there, but i dont mind it too much. Ill see them in the Stanely Cup

Hunter07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 12:29 AM
  #3
NYYmt62
Registered User
 
NYYmt62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Islander Country
Country: United States
Posts: 1,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eman Resu View Post
I was surprised to hear Howie say during tonight's game that this was the last Islander game of the YEAR that would be played out of the eastern time zone.

I like the rivalries, I'm happy to see the Rangers more and to see lots of Crosby and Malkin (but not too happy). But overall I'll miss playing the Western teams more. I'd love to see Phaneuf on Calgary and Thornton on San Jose...

Just wondering how everyone else feels about the "new" schedule. Do you like seeing more Eastern Conference teams at the expense of not seeing the Western teams AT ALL?
I like the new schedule. I think it is great that we play teams from our own conference so much. The games with the teams from the Western Conference just seem to lack the same intensity. A plus for us is that we get to see Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin so often since they are all in the East. I don't think the games with the Atlantic rivals get old, so I think it just adds to the excitement that we play so many games in the conference.

NYYmt62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 10:47 AM
  #4
MartyMcInnis
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Manhattan
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
First of all, with an 82-game schedule, there's no excuse for not getting to play every team at least once.

I would love to see six games played against each division rival, three games against each other conference rival, and two games against each out-of-conference team. Of course, that adds up to 84, so either add two to the schedule, or pick two to subtract.

Why shouldn't I get to see guys like Rick Nash and Martin Havlat every year?

Also, this nonsense of three-point games results in:
(1) in-conference games being worth much more than out-of-conference games, when all wins really ought to be worth essentially the same
(2) the third periods of out-of-conference games being played very defensively by both teams - essentially a gentlemen's agreement to go to overtime, because of the guaranteed point with no playoff implications (EDIT: no conference rival benefits)

Go to a ten-minute overtime, a five-player shootout, and eliminate the "OTL" column, and you will see some pretty intense games, both in- and out-of conference.

MartyMcInnis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 10:55 AM
  #5
BJo
Registered User
 
BJo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyMcInnis View Post

Why shouldn't I get to see guys like Rick Nash and Martin Havlat every year?

Also, this nonsense of three-point games results in:
(1) in-conference games being worth much more than out-of-conference games, when all wins really ought to be worth essentially the same
(2) the third periods of out-of-conference games being played very defensively by both teams - essentially a gentlemen's agreement to go to overtime, because of the guaranteed point with no playoff implications (EDIT: no conference rival benefits)

Go to a ten-minute overtime, a five-player shootout, and eliminate the "OTL" column, and you will see some pretty intense games, both in- and out-of conference.
You can't see Havlat every year because he's always injured haha.

But seriously, the 3 point games are a joke. we need to get rid of it. I was even thinking a 5 minute 4 on 4 and a 5 minute 3 on 3 would be pretty sweet.

Another change needs to be that players do not wear helmets during shootouts. I believe this was Barry Melrose's idea. It would make the players more famous with the public, would show everyone some of the great hockey haircuts and makes it more fan friendly. No reason not to. Give the players the option if they are scared they may not be injured.

BJo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 11:06 AM
  #6
Titan124
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,683
vCash: 500
I think the NHL should go to the format that a lot of european leagues use. 3 points for a win, 2 for an ot win, 1 for an ot loss. This way, there will always be 3 points every game.

Titan124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 11:12 AM
  #7
Twine Seeking Missle
Go monkey go!!!
 
Twine Seeking Missle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Suck-town
Country: United States
Posts: 7,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyymt62 View Post
A plus for us is that we get to see Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin so often since they are all in the East.
Are you sure thats a plus? I would rather not play those guys at all and if I want to watch them play, that is what Center Ice is for. When watching the Isles, the only important thing is winning no matter how pretty or ugly the games are. If I am watching an out of market game, then yes I want to see some pretty hockey.

Twine Seeking Missle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 11:14 AM
  #8
MartyMcInnis
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Manhattan
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjoelson View Post
You can't see Havlat every year because he's always injured haha.
Ha. Good point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjoelson View Post
But seriously, the 3 point games are a joke. we need to get rid of it. I was even thinking a 5 minute 4 on 4 and a 5 minute 3 on 3 would be pretty sweet.
You mean 4 on 4, then 3 on 3, then shootout? Interesting idea. I do think 4 on 4 is enough open ice, especially if given ten minutes, but the fans would certainly enjoy a little 3 on 3.

Of course, why not just make the goalies take off their pads and play a little one-on-one, half court, posts, race to three? That would be fun, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjoelson View Post
Another change needs to be that players do not wear helmets during shootouts. I believe this was Barry Melrose's idea. It would make the players more famous with the public, would show everyone some of the great hockey haircuts and makes it more fan friendly. No reason not to. Give the players the option if they are scared they may not be injured.
Yeah, that's also a very good idea. Maybe we'll see a few more nice hockey mullets popping up if they're allowed to show them off.

MartyMcInnis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 11:20 AM
  #9
BJo
Registered User
 
BJo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twine Seeking Missle View Post
Are you sure thats a plus? I would rather not play those guys at all and if I want to watch them play, that is what Center Ice is for. When watching the Isles, the only important thing is winning no matter how pretty or ugly the games are. If I am watching an out of market game, then yes I want to see some pretty hockey.
I completely agree! I'd play chicago every night if it meant we won every night. I couldn't care less about seeing crosby make brilliant passes to Malkin against the islanders. I'm pissed off whether the goal scored against the islanders is pretty or Eric Godard scoring. I want to see winning, not pretty games, when the isles are involved

BJo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 11:21 AM
  #10
MartyMcInnis
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Manhattan
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan124 View Post
I think the NHL should go to the format that a lot of european leagues use. 3 points for a win, 2 for an ot win, 1 for an ot loss. This way, there will always be 3 points every game.
That would work, too. The two negatives I see to this are (1) comparing to previous seasons - for example, it immediately wipes out the record for most points in a season (2) just too much math for most fans to handle. I agree that it would be fair and would certainly be better than the current format. However, my vote still goes to completely eliminating the "OTL" column and playing for all-or-nothing stakes. The competition is just a lot more intense when there's always the possibility of coming away with nothing.

MartyMcInnis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 11:33 AM
  #11
puckstopper55
Registered User
 
puckstopper55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 1,043
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to puckstopper55
I dont know. I think I am a little torn here. I would love to see teams like San Jose, Dallas, Calgary more, however If they play at the Colesium we only see their White jersey's so it doesnt really matter. I love the San Jose teal...
Also, You think the fans on the West coast ***** now, just think about them complaining when they play 30 games on the east coast and all their games start at 4:30 local time. Most people dont get home from work until 5:30 or 6:00, so they would be missing a lot of games. To me it seems as if they want more Eastern teams to go to them, and they are forgetting about the travel their team would have to do.
On the same token, i dont like 10:30 pm starts. The games arent over until 1:30 -2:00am EST. Playing 8 games against the Rangers is really fun, and helps build rivalaries. I like the way it is now.

puckstopper55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 11:47 AM
  #12
AgentOrange*
 
AgentOrange*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjoelson View Post
Another change needs to be that players do not wear helmets during shootouts. I believe this was Barry Melrose's idea. It would make the players more famous with the public, would show everyone some of the great hockey haircuts and makes it more fan friendly. No reason not to. Give the players the option if they are scared they may not be injured.
Then DiPi might get jealous and want to take his helmet off too.

AgentOrange* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 12:25 PM
  #13
BJo
Registered User
 
BJo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentOrange View Post
Then DiPi might get jealous and want to take his helmet off too.
BRILLIANT

BJo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 01:51 PM
  #14
E_Godard
Registered User
 
E_Godard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Section 103
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 7,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan124 View Post
I think the NHL should go to the format that a lot of european leagues use. 3 points for a win, 2 for an ot win, 1 for an ot loss. This way, there will always be 3 points every game.
Ya I agree with you, however MartyMcInnis makes a good point in regards to record comparisons, etc..

Its kinda how I always felt about goals and assists. I always thought assists should only count as half a point. Obviously the goal probably wouldnt have taken place without the assist(except in the case of an unassisted goal), but goals arent given for assists in game. Meaning the goal should have some sort of higher markup.

E_Godard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2006, 07:23 PM
  #15
knsmith85
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Troy, NY
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E_Godard View Post
Ya I agree with you, however MartyMcInnis makes a good point in regards to record comparisons, etc..

Its kinda how I always felt about goals and assists. I always thought assists should only count as half a point. Obviously the goal probably wouldnt have taken place without the assist(except in the case of an unassisted goal), but goals arent given for assists in game. Meaning the goal should have some sort of higher markup.
Sounds like an argument from someone who's as prolific a point-scorer as... Eric Goddard.

knsmith85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2006, 10:44 AM
  #16
Eman Resu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the woods
Country: Tibet
Posts: 1,668
vCash: 500
Our schedule broken down by team and times played

Okay, I broke this down because, well... **** my boss.

Here are the teams in the league and the number of times we play them this year in alphabetical order. I've bolded the teams we won't play at all (until the playoffs!) and underlined those we play 8 times:

Anaheim 1
Atlanta 4
Boston 4
Buffalo 4
Calgary 0
Carolina 4
Chicago 1
Colorado 0
Columbus 1
Dallas 1
Detroit 1
Edmonton 0
Florida 4
Los Angeles 1
Minnesota 0
Montreal 4
Nashville 1
New Jersey Devils 8
New York Rangers 8
Ottawa 4
Philadelphia 8
Phoenix 1
Pittsburgh 8
San Jose 1
St. Louis 1
Tampa Bay 4
Toronto 4
Vancouver 0
Washington 4

What I'd do is cut playing the teams in our division from 8x to 6x. That would free up 8 games. Take 5 of those games and then we can play each team at least once since there are 5 teams that we don't play at all. Then we have 3 extra games to play with...

Anyway, can you believe we won't see Edmonton this year? If you're over the age of 30 you can appreciate the history of this rivalry. I just think it stinks we won't play them at all. And can you imagine being a fan in the 80s without seeing those freaky Vancouver uniforms?

Eman Resu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2006, 01:39 PM
  #17
E_Godard
Registered User
 
E_Godard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Section 103
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 7,041
vCash: 500
That really sucks... Edm, Cal, and Minn I wouldve loved to seen at the coliseum or even away. They should make changes to allow atleast even 1 against those teams. If divisional game counts are that important, then pull from elsewhere.

E_Godard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.