By reducing division games, the NHL has reduced the rivalry excitement

[These Are The Days]

I am actually more satisfied with the current format. This shoved down the throat nostalgic atrificial rivalry bullshit will never happen because the league has 31 teams and not 20 and secondly, until we let the players discipline and police themselves it will never become anything. Players create rivalry.

The absolute closest thing the Lightning have to a rival is Detroit because we beat the holy shit out of each other and the players set the tone instead of the NHL saying "Everyone needs to be excited about this" depending on what petty nonsense Marchand pulls next time we play Boston we could see something similar.

The NHL will never get it because they'll never let the boys play again. Playing 100 times against a cordial division team won't ever do anything

 

[Butch 19]

I agree with the OP (and this relates to the concurrent Tortorella thread).

The NHL has crapped the bed by not allowing more and natural rivalries to grow by having more games between rivals. Speaking as someone who remembers the latter half of the 80s in the NHL, Oilers' fans from 1986 to 1988 (and then only interrupted by the Gretzky trade) cared only about the Calgary-Edmonton games, of which there were a couple every pre-season, 8 in the regular season, and two playoff series from '86 to '88.

Last year, the Oilers and Flames played on opening night, and then didn't meet again until February or something, by which point the Oilers were already dead in the water so nobody cared. The last time the franchises met in the playoffs was 27 years ago.

It's completely ridiculous, but the NHL has always been good at being idiotic with showcasing its best aspects to fans.

Sounds like a lot of casual fans in Edm....?

And ... you think it's idiotic to show all the teams to all the fans? Okay

 

[Lacaar]

Please for the love of good don't bring back playing same team 8 times a year crap.
Rivalries are gone because there's 31 teams in the league and you don't see the same team in the playoffs much because of it.
NOT because you play regular season games against each other.

God I remember having to play Minnesota 6-8 times a year when they were the kings of dull trap hockey. That was the worst. And there was no rivalry born out of it I'll tell you that much.

 

[Braunbaer]

You do realize that they're going to be the best teams in the Atlantic for the next decade, right?

What about next week's lotto numbers?

But maybe you're right. Everyone in the league is trembling with fear when they think about the 6-4 Sabres or the Leafs who have yet to prove they can even win a playoff series.

 

[karnige]

I'm so sick of division rival games. it was over saturated. love the newer format way better

 

[easton117]

I agree with the posters who say 8 is too many divisional games.

6 is perfect. If you want to hide it just schedule back to backs 3 times over the year.

I really don’t need to see Arizona twice a year. Or any other non conference team for that matter. Once is sufficient. Just alternate who is the home team every other year.

 

[MNNumbers]

I agree with the posters who say 8 is too many divisional games.

6 is perfect. If you want to hide it just schedule back to backs 3 times over the year.

I really don’t need to see Arizona twice a year. Or any other non conference team for that matter. Once is sufficient. Just alternate who is the home team every other year.

I think 6 is also just right. Hence my proposed schedule after Seattle joins.
4 conferences of 8 teams.
Vs your own conference: 6 games
Vs 2 of the other 3 conferences: 2 games
Vs the last conference: 1 game.
Equals 82 games. Rotate who the conferences are who only play once. You miss everyone not in your conference playing in your building ONCE in 6 years. It's not a big loss, and in return you get the 6 games.

 

[easton117]

I think 6 is also just right. Hence my proposed schedule after Seattle joins.
4 conferences of 8 teams.
Vs your own conference: 6 games
Vs 2 of the other 3 conferences: 2 games
Vs the last conference: 1 game.
Equals 82 games. Rotate who the conferences are who only play once. You miss everyone not in your conference playing in your building ONCE in 6 years. It's not a big loss, and in return you get the 6 games.

Ya I could see it.

It makes more sense than the current schedule. Especially with their current playoff format.

If divisional standings are going to matter so much shouldn’t you play more games against them? How does the opposite even make sense?

 

[MNNumbers]

Ya I could see it.

It makes more sense than the current schedule. Especially with their current playoff format.

If divisional standings are going to matter so much shouldn’t you play more games against them? How does the opposite even make sense?

Thanks. And, I would add that the playoffs would be Top4 and 2 rounds in the conference, with no wild cards. (And, I say that, because as far as I know, the WC is there only because when the current alignment started, there were 14 teams in the west and 16 in the east, and the PA demanded something to equal things out. So, under a completely symmetrical alignment there is no need for WCs.)

 

[Dolemite]

The best year(s) the NHL had was when all teams had divisional opponents in the last 8-10 games of the season. The stretch drive made for some amazing games across the board. Not sure why they moved away from this.

 

[HockeyMomx2]

82 games is pretty long. Not sure that qualifies as instant gratification.

Guess it depends on your point of view. Back then I had a daughter who was a Mike Modano fan. It made for a couple special christmas’ getting her those game tickets the few times they were in Boston. Just as special as if we had gotten Habs v Bruins tickets. But that’s us and our family. I preferred when there were many games vs the friggin Habs than this pansy schmanzy 3-4 times a season crap and rarely back to back home and homes so no hatred carry over.

 

[Blade Runner]

Rangers playing against the Flyers / Islanders is like Rangers playing against the Predators.

 

[BruinsFan37]

Never change HF....

HF: "Rivalries are dead -- we need more divisional games."

also HF: "The season is too long, we need fewer games."

The only way you could possibly make both work would be if you eliminated non-conference games. In which case recent games like Crosby vs. McDavid or to a lesser extent Matthews vs. Laine never happen. They could go their entire careers without ever playing one-another (unless they happen to meet in the cup final).

Teams having a "home and home" with every other team is good for business. Sure not that many people care when the Yotes come to town currently, but when Crosby, McDavid, etc. -- the leagues "marquee players" come to visit it's a draw which the league/owners would be foolish to pass up.

A home and home with every other team is 60 games (will be 62 once Seattle joins). The only way you can add more divisional games would be to extend the season, and I don't think many people want that.

 

[member 305909]

82 games in the regular season is a lot but they wouldn't play that many games if there were not enough spectators willing to go and see all those games.

It is quite an unenviable jigsaw-puzzle to make the schedule which includes 82 games for each team for a period of six months or so.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

6 was a happy medium

 

[Andy6]

I think 6 is also just right. Hence my proposed schedule after Seattle joins.
4 conferences of 8 teams.
Vs your own conference: 6 games
Vs 2 of the other 3 conferences: 2 games
Vs the last conference: 1 game.
Equals 82 games. Rotate who the conferences are who only play once. You miss everyone not in your conference playing in your building ONCE in 6 years. It's not a big loss, and in return you get the 6 games.

This is the ideal solution. I would just modify it so you'd always play 2 vs. the opposite division in your conference. Each season you'd play only one game (per team) vs. one of the divisions in the other conference. It would alternate back and forth which division that was. That way you'd get enough games (and an equal number of games) vs. everyone in your own division while you would still see 27 of the 31 other teams in your rink each season. A pretty good compromise.

 

[FaceWash]

i think it's more about individual rivalries these days

 

[member 305909]

The current format is far from perfect but it is least worst from the perspective as it seems to be the rule that the Stanley Cup-final must always a battle between the east and the west.