2021- 22 Schedule

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,625
2,486
In the midst of yesterday's broadcast news posts, there was a news clip which stated that the NHL offered GMs 2 choices on next year's schedule. I hope it's ok to put this here, because it does affect finances of the clubs. In fact, finances are the way this will probably be decided.

First of all, these are under the assumption that the pre-COVID alignment is possible.

The 2 choices:
A) 2 Conferences, 4 Divisions. Vs other conference...2 games each team. Vs other Division in your conference...3 games each team. Vs your division...4 games v 5 teams, 3 games v 2 teams.
Since this matrix squashes out the specialness of the division, the playoffs would likely be conference based in some way. (Note that in this arrangement, the Wild might play 3 games with Vegas, but also 3 games with Winnipeg. This is what I mean by the matrix suppresses the specialness of the divisions.)

B) 4 Divisions. No conferences. Vs all other divisions..2 games each (48). Vs own division...4 games (28). 6 remaining games for 'special scheduling'.
Playoffs likely to be division based.

These 2 options explain what I have said for a long time. The Eastern Time Zone teams would do well with option A. But, the other 16 clubs will likely prefer option B (exception to be Arizona), due to travel concerns.

I'm curious as to whether anyone has special insight here, or comments.
 

Mikeshane

Registered User
Jan 15, 2013
6,175
3,923
If they go with option A I see no reason not to manually decide who each team plays 4 times and 3 times. Just give preference to fan interest and anything else they deem important and make those teams play 4 times. Minnesota and Winnipeg can play 4 times every year and Minnesota can play Vegas 3 times every year.
 

coolboarder

Registered User
Mar 4, 2010
1,417
295
Maryland
If they go with option A I see no reason not to manually decide who each team plays 4 times and 3 times. Just give preference to fan interest and anything else they deem important and make those teams play 4 times. Minnesota and Winnipeg can play 4 times every year and Minnesota can play Vegas 3 times every year.
In my opinion, 3 games within the conference is too much because of the travel one extra time is excess to Western conference than the Eastern conference teams. As for Eastern conference, they have no problem with this model but for Western Conference, I would oppose to option A. Just limit to 2 games with other division is better way, fewer extra air miles, more games within their time zone will help both, Central and Pacific division teams rather than travelling just for one extra game. Travel to one city outside division once is just enough. Imagine 8 extra games within your time zone rather than travel for 4 extra games for a road trip. I wouldn't mind schedule 6 special games which means, it could be extra travel but reasonable enough to do it in one trip for as long it's like baseball-like schedule. If special schedule involves top teams meeting one extra game outside their schedule matrix, i.e. Stanley Cup rematch with 3 games (two games from schedule matrix and one special schedule game, I'm up for it. I just feel that they could do away with 6 games and go with 76 games season. It would allows for some rest and more practice time for all teams with no change to season length. Special schedule has to make some sense and fair in term of strength of schedule. This could mean one extra road trip unless they include baseball style mini-series games like they are using right now.
 

ColinM

Registered User
Dec 14, 2004
887
160
Halifax
In my opinion, 3 games within the conference is too much because of the travel one extra time is excess to Western conference than the Eastern conference teams. As for Eastern conference, they have no problem with this model but for Western Conference, I would oppose to option A. Just limit to 2 games with other division is better way, fewer extra air miles, more games within their time zone will help both, Central and Pacific division teams rather than travelling just for one extra game. Travel to one city outside division once is just enough. Imagine 8 extra games within your time zone rather than travel for 4 extra games for a road trip. I wouldn't mind schedule 6 special games which means, it could be extra travel but reasonable enough to do it in one trip for as long it's like baseball-like schedule. If special schedule involves top teams meeting one extra game outside their schedule matrix, i.e. Stanley Cup rematch with 3 games (two games from schedule matrix and one special schedule game, I'm up for it. I just feel that they could do away with 6 games and go with 76 games season. It would allows for some rest and more practice time for all teams with no change to season length. Special schedule has to make some sense and fair in term of strength of schedule. This could mean one extra road trip unless they include baseball style mini-series games like they are using right now.

Agreed with this part. I've often thought the season should be shorter and this is likely a good window to make that so.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,277
12,568
South Mountain
I caught that in there. Does the PA have to sign off on any of this? They mentioned the BOG briefly, but that was it.

The PA has sign off on changes to the playoffs.

The PA doesn't have sign off on changes to the regular season schedule unless it violates any of the agreed upon League Schedule terms in CBA Article 16 such as 82 game season, minimum 184 regular season, scheduled offtime, restricted days, etc. The PA does have an opportunity to provide input on the proposed regular season schedule each season, but the NHL retains the final decision authority.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,441
37,260
The B-option is probably better for business. I don’t know why it has to be 4 divisions and no conferences though. The best teams should make the playoffs though, someone shouldn’t be left out based on their division.

I have always been for going to conference-only format though. We are past the need for divisions, they are not important and it’s not important to win it.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,522
18,667
Sin City
Conferences would really only matter in playoffs if the "eastern" and "western" teams face each other in 3rd round.

If re-seeding after 2nd round, not really a big thing.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,625
2,486
The B-option is probably better for business. I don’t know why it has to be 4 divisions and no conferences though. The best teams should make the playoffs though, someone shouldn’t be left out based on their division.

I have always been for going to conference-only format though. We are past the need for divisions, they are not important and it’s not important to win it.

Would you mind giving more detail about what you mean here?

The proposal B which is a 4-2-2-2 Plus 6 games proposal means that, for example, to the Metro teams, there is no distinction in importance between Vegas and Montreal (each is a team from outside their division). Therefore, the only thing that makes sense is 2 rounds of playoffs in the division. That leaves a Final 4 scenario, and that can be handled by "East and West" or by a re-seed.

But, I don't understand exactly what you mean here.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,441
37,260
Would you mind giving more detail about what you mean here?

The proposal B which is a 4-2-2-2 Plus 6 games proposal means that, for example, to the Metro teams, there is no distinction in importance between Vegas and Montreal (each is a team from outside their division). Therefore, the only thing that makes sense is 2 rounds of playoffs in the division. That leaves a Final 4 scenario, and that can be handled by "East and West" or by a re-seed.

But, I don't understand exactly what you mean here.
I prefer the A-schedule because of the playoff format.

But I do think the B-schedule is better for business to put in more rivalry games, or in the case of Canadian teams, more games against the other Canadian teams.
 

oknazevad

Registered User
Dec 12, 2018
467
328
Clearly the ultimate solution is an 84-game season, as those two extra games obviate the need to play a couple of division teams only three times instead of the four in the rest of the division. Four divisions of 8 teams, paired into two conferences (which also preserves the Prince of Wales Trophy and Campbell Trophy). Each team plays divisional opponents four times (28 games in a double home-and-home), non-divisional conference opponents three times (24 games, with a home-and-home, and half as a second home game, and the other half with a second road game, alternating years), and inter-conference opponents twice (32 games in a single home-and-home). Easy, consistent, balanced, fair, everybody sees everybody, and yet still gives prime importance to divisional play, as divisional playoffs have a significant fan engagement.

Of course, a lot of people think the regular season is too long as it, and would rather drop six games. That could be easily accomplished by eliminating the third non-divisional conference game. So everybody plays everybody twice, except divisional opponents double that. But nobody wants to loose the gate and local broadcasting revenue, which are so major to the NHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spydey629

saskriders

Can't Hold Leads
Sep 11, 2010
25,064
1,599
Calgary
Option B.

For the special games have three weekends where everyone has a back to back home and away against a rival. Same rivals every year.
 

Bucky_Hoyt

Registered User
Dec 11, 2005
600
46
Singapore
Option B.

Gives NHL room for a shortened schedule in case restrictions are not fully lifted.

In a regular 82-game slate, 'rivalries' might be interesting. Baseball does a version of rivalry games and works well enough for most of the teams.

Guessing the NHL version could be either 6-teams x 1 extra game or 3-teams x 2 extra games would be the most likely setup. 2 extra games played per each of the 3 other divisions seems fairest.
 

New Jersey Devil

Registered User
Sep 30, 2013
174
56
New Jersey
Clearly the ultimate solution is an 84-game season, as those two extra games obviate the need to play a couple of division teams only three times instead of the four in the rest of the division. Four divisions of 8 teams, paired into two conferences (which also preserves the Prince of Wales Trophy and Campbell Trophy). Each team plays divisional opponents four times (28 games in a double home-and-home), non-divisional conference opponents three times (24 games, with a home-and-home, and half as a second home game, and the other half with a second road game, alternating years), and inter-conference opponents twice (32 games in a single home-and-home). Easy, consistent, balanced, fair, everybody sees everybody, and yet still gives prime importance to divisional play, as divisional playoffs have a significant fan engagement.

Of course, a lot of people think the regular season is too long as it, and would rather drop six games. That could be easily accomplished by eliminating the third non-divisional conference game. So everybody plays everybody twice, except divisional opponents double that. But nobody wants to loose the gate and local broadcasting revenue, which are so major to the NHL.
I hope they don't do the home-and-home series against every team in the league. Especially teams that are 2 or 3 time zones away from each other.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,625
2,486
I think that it's very clear from everything that we have seen so far that the home/away against everyone is going to be the basis for the schedule...(assuming the US-CAN border is open).

As for option B (which is my fav as well), I suppose that the 6 extra games for Canada teams would be, very simply, one more against all the other Canada teams. For the US based teams, I would suspect a mix and match routine....in other words, it wouldn't be solid groups in any kind of way.....

Minnesota might play an extra with Dallas, and also Buffalo and Detroit, along with 3 others. But Detroit might have Minnesota, and also NYR, NYI, Pit...

et cetera. The above paragraph is no prediction. It's just a sample of the sort of mixing I refer to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kvladimir

Ringmaster

Registered User
Oct 8, 2010
1,395
145
Santa Monica California
They used to have something like this. I remember 3 select games like Vancouver played Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa. This was when they only played the other conference only once a year.
 

RosensRug

Registered User
Oct 1, 2020
560
378
They aren't getting rid of playing every team home and away. Fans want to see all 31 opponents at home.

Think this varies greatly depending where you live/who you're a fan of. If you're a transplanted New Yorker living in AZ of course you want all 31 teams coming to you as you can see your hometown team every year. On the other hand you'll be hard pressed to find many major market eastern conference teams that want to be saddled with midweek Coyotes, Ducks, etc games instead of an extra game with Montreal, New York, etc
 

sh724

Registered User
Jun 2, 2009
2,823
603
Missouri
I am Team B on this one.

This is basically what the NHL proposed a few years ago before the current alignment was agreed upon. The NHL proposed eliminating the divisions and having four "conferences", whether you call them conferences or divisions or something else its just semantics.

Every city gets to see every team every year then a bunch of divisional games with a few randoms thrown in.
 

LeafalCrusader

Registered User
Oct 3, 2013
9,584
10,850
Winnipeg
I am Team B on this one.

This is basically what the NHL proposed a few years ago before the current alignment was agreed upon. The NHL proposed eliminating the divisions and having four "conferences", whether you call them conferences or divisions or something else its just semantics.

Every city gets to see every team every year then a bunch of divisional games with a few randoms thrown in.

I liked that 4 conference idea they came up with.
 

saskriders

Can't Hold Leads
Sep 11, 2010
25,064
1,599
Calgary
I think that it's very clear from everything that we have seen so far that the home/away against everyone is going to be the basis for the schedule...(assuming the US-CAN border is open).

As for option B (which is my fav as well), I suppose that the 6 extra games for Canada teams would be, very simply, one more against all the other Canada teams. For the US based teams, I would suspect a mix and match routine....in other words, it wouldn't be solid groups in any kind of way.....

Minnesota might play an extra with Dallas, and also Buffalo and Detroit, along with 3 others. But Detroit might have Minnesota, and also NYR, NYI, Pit...

et cetera. The above paragraph is no prediction. It's just a sample of the sort of mixing I refer to.

As a fan of a Canadian team I don't want to see each Canadian team one more time. I'd rather the six games be used for three "rivalry weekends" throughout the year. Opening weekend, closing weekend, and some weekend in the middle. On each of those everyone has a head to head against one of three rivals. The rivals are the same every year and only change if forced by relocation/expansion.

My rough draft of rival matchups (obviously not everyone has three rivals and what not, this should have more input from fans of other teams, it is just a preliminary draft). Leftmost column is a list of teams, the next three columns represent the three teams they would have a home and home against.
Screenshot_20210505-014837.png
 

Lunatik

Normal is an illusion.
Oct 12, 2012
56,094
8,284
Padded Room
B is closer to what I prefer. But what I'd rather see is 8 divisions of 4, with 4 conferences. 6 vs own division, 4 vs other in conference division, 2 vs everyone else. And that works out to 82 games
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkrdevil

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->