Schedule Format Once Seattle Starts Up

[MNNumbers]

They are not going to go away from home and away from other conference. people do want to see at least every team live. Those that actually pay $$$ for season tickets.

I agree, and if you actually read my post, you would know that. But, along with reality, we all have our preferences, too, right?

 

[LeafalCrusader]

That's what will happen, I think.

Home/away versus everyone not in your 8-team group.
All the rest against your 8-team group (it will be 5 games against 6 teams, and 4 against the other)

Playoffs will be 2 rounds within the 8-team group.

I'd be okay with that actually if they change the playoff format to what you suggest. Preferable to ending up in a 1st round series against a team you've only played twice in the regular season.

 

[KevFu]

As a season ticket holder, hated playing one team 8 times and then seeing the other conference teams once every 3 years. That was one of the bigger complaints on ticket holder surveys.
And what are these facts Kevfu talks about, that we cannot deny.

The last time the NHL had a schedule where two teams met 8 times in a single regular season was 1993.
The least amount of frequent visits by non-conference teams in the old format (9 road games at 15 teams per year) was three per team, but they'd be guaranteed to visit in year four. It was 2.4 visits from each team in a four-year stretch.

The last edition of the data I did can be found here:
Home/Away vs Everyone is Bad for Business

Basically, in the 4 or 5 times I've run the numbers, roughly 75% of the league or more sells more tickets for division/conference games than they do for non-conference games.

There's no correlation between which teams fall into the minority in any given year (Nothing like "Anaheim always sells more tickets vs the East." It's just random which non-sellout teams happen to draw a few extra fans for a non-division conference game than a division game).

That random variance is easily explained by more common attendance factors than opponent:
- Promotions/jersey retirements (usually scheduled to boost attendance of games vs lackluster opponents. I've been to two Islanders at San Jose games, and I have two Latino Heritage Night jerseys. It's one of their most popular promotions. There were 3x as many Islanders fans in Vegas as their were in San Jose).

- The day of the week the games fall on. (and Division games are more likely to be early midweek games, which typically don't draw as well).

- Variable Pricing structures (Buffalo is the textbook example: they charge more for CHI/TOR/BOS than teams like ARZ/FLA; and Arizona is one of the most sold-out games every year because it's also their cheapest tickets of the year).

 

[KevFu]

So I showed that Home and Away vs everyone in the league costs the league money via ticket sales. Now let's talk TV.

It restricts the amount of max-interest games you can sell to TV, because there's not a lot of non-conference "rivalries" compared to divisional ones and every non-conference game you're playing is a division/conference game you're not playing.

I do not doubt that when asked, Season Ticket Holders said they want everyone to visit at least once per year. But did anyone ask their fans "okay, which games do you want to give up to make that happen?" or "Do you want more games starting at 4 pm or 10 pm to accommodate that?"

If you're an Oilers fan, do you want TOR, MON, OTT to visit you once each every year? Of course.
But do you want to give up two games against Calgary and one against Winnipeg so you can also cram extra home games against NYI, NJD, BUF, FLA, CBJ, CAR, TB?
And would you rather watch a road game that starts at 5 pm game vs Carolina or one that starts at 7 pm against Colorado?


I lived in the San Jose market and now the Arizona markets, and loved it when my Islanders visit me. But (and this is actual 2019-20 scheduled game times from the original, pre-pandemic schedule)

But do you think Sharks fans enjoyed:
at Buffalo, Tuesday 4 pm
at Montreal, Thursday 4 pm
at Boston, Tuesday 4 pm
at Detroit, Tuesday 4:30 pm
at Pittsburgh, Thursday, 4 pm
at Columbus, Saturday, 10 AM
at Washington, Sunday, 9:30 AM
at New Jersey, Thursday, 4 pm
at Philadelphia, Tuesday, 4 pm

How about the Coyotes trying to grow a fan base by promoting THIS schedule:
Tue. Oct. 22: at NY Rangers, 4:00 p.m.
Thu. Oct. 24: at NY Islanders, 4:00 p.m.
Mon. Oct. 28: at Buffalo, 4:00 p.m.
Mon. Nov. 11: at Washington, 4:00 p.m.
Tue. Dec. 3: at Columbus, 5:00 p.m.
Thu. Dec. 5: at Philadelphia, 5:00 p.m.
Fri. Dec. 6: at Pittsburgh, 5:00 p.m.
Tue. Jan. 7: at Florida, 5:00 p.m.
Thu. Jan. 9: at Tampa Bay, 5:00 p.m.
Fri. Jan. 10: at Carolina, 5:30 p.m.
Mon. Feb. 10: at Montreal, 5:00 p.m.
Tue. Feb. 11: at Toronto, 5:00 p.m.
Thu. Feb. 13: at Ottawa, 5:30 p.m.


I see a lot of posts on this site complaining about "small market" or "poor teams" who need to do a better job of building their fan base and revenue streams. And no one (but me apparently) is saying "Maybe the Coyotes could get a bigger TV deal if they weren't trying to sell Fox Sports Arizona a schedule where ONE THIRD OF ROAD GAMES start while their viewers are DRIVING HOME FROM WORK."

 

[Golden_Jet]

The last time the NHL had a schedule where two teams met 8 times in a single regular season was 1993.
The least amount of frequent visits by non-conference teams in the old format (9 road games at 15 teams per year) was three per team, but they'd be guaranteed to visit in year four. It was 2.4 visits from each team in a four-year stretch.

The last edition of the data I did can be found here:
Home/Away vs Everyone is Bad for Business

Basically, in the 4 or 5 times I've run the numbers, roughly 75% of the league or more sells more tickets for division/conference games than they do for non-conference games.

There's no correlation between which teams fall into the minority in any given year (Nothing like "Anaheim always sells more tickets vs the East." It's just random which non-sellout teams happen to draw a few extra fans for a non-division conference game than a division game).

That random variance is easily explained by more common attendance factors than opponent:
- Promotions/jersey retirements (usually scheduled to boost attendance of games vs lackluster opponents. I've been to two Islanders at San Jose games, and I have two Latino Heritage Night jerseys. It's one of their most popular promotions. There were 3x as many Islanders fans in Vegas as their were in San Jose).

- The day of the week the games fall on. (and Division games are more likely to be early midweek games, which typically don't draw as well).

- Variable Pricing structures (Buffalo is the textbook example: they charge more for CHI/TOR/BOS than teams like ARZ/FLA; and Arizona is one of the most sold-out games every year because it's also their cheapest tickets of the year).

Actually 2007/ 2008 season, thankfully they finally changed it from 8 games.

2007-08 New York Islanders Head-to-Head Results | Hockey-Reference.com

And like I said it was season ticket holders who wanted it changed across the league, the ones that pay most of the bill. The fan going to a couple of games a year has no pull really.

 

[KevFu]

Ah yes. I forgot when they came back from the CBA armaggedon, they went to 8 division games for three years. So they went from 8 to 6 in 1994 and kept that until they lost a season. Then to get the fans back, they threw rivalries at them!

(Which, isn't that kind of telling to my point that if you're trying to bring fans back and recover revenues after a season TOTALLY LOST to labor issues, your method of doing it is is to give the fans more rivalry games?)

 

[Centrum Hockey]

So you’re saying they’re more likely to sell out vs the Capitals than the Canucks... the local rivals, where the novelty of an away game will attract lots of Canuck fans.... sorry Canucks are the number one away attraction in Seattle.

As for the schedule, I think they need to move away from the 32 inter conference games, either 16 games or 20 with 1 against each team plus 4 games against special rivals so the Canadian teams for example play each other twice.

32 non playoff implicating games is too large a piece of the schedule.

My point was the original 5/6 teams and the stars of the game would be attraction for a new team in their first year. Especially since Seattle most likely has life long residents of the pacific northwest that may be be discovering hockey for the first time.

 

[MNNumbers]

My point was the original 5/6 teams and the stars of the game would be attraction for a new team in their first year. Especially since Seattle most likely has life long residents of the pacific northwest that may be be discovering hockey for the first time.

If Seattle has fans 'discovering the game for the first time', then those fans don't know anything about Original 6. This is where marketing is going to be key. Although, in the case of Seattle, they should be fine.

 

[MNNumbers]

So I showed that Home and Away vs everyone in the league costs the league money via ticket sales. Now let's talk TV.

It restricts the amount of max-interest games you can sell to TV, because there's not a lot of non-conference "rivalries" compared to divisional ones and every non-conference game you're playing is a division/conference game you're not playing.

I do not doubt that when asked, Season Ticket Holders said they want everyone to visit at least once per year. But did anyone ask their fans "okay, which games do you want to give up to make that happen?" or "Do you want more games starting at 4 pm or 10 pm to accommodate that?"

If you're an Oilers fan, do you want TOR, MON, OTT to visit you once each every year? Of course.
But do you want to give up two games against Calgary and one against Winnipeg so you can also cram extra home games against NYI, NJD, BUF, FLA, CBJ, CAR, TB?
And would you rather watch a road game that starts at 5 pm game vs Carolina or one that starts at 7 pm against Colorado?


I lived in the San Jose market and now the Arizona markets, and loved it when my Islanders visit me. But (and this is actual 2019-20 scheduled game times from the original, pre-pandemic schedule)

But do you think Sharks fans enjoyed:
at Buffalo, Tuesday 4 pm
at Montreal, Thursday 4 pm
at Boston, Tuesday 4 pm
at Detroit, Tuesday 4:30 pm
at Pittsburgh, Thursday, 4 pm
at Columbus, Saturday, 10 AM
at Washington, Sunday, 9:30 AM
at New Jersey, Thursday, 4 pm
at Philadelphia, Tuesday, 4 pm

How about the Coyotes trying to grow a fan base by promoting THIS schedule:
Tue. Oct. 22: at NY Rangers, 4:00 p.m.
Thu. Oct. 24: at NY Islanders, 4:00 p.m.
Mon. Oct. 28: at Buffalo, 4:00 p.m.
Mon. Nov. 11: at Washington, 4:00 p.m.
Tue. Dec. 3: at Columbus, 5:00 p.m.
Thu. Dec. 5: at Philadelphia, 5:00 p.m.
Fri. Dec. 6: at Pittsburgh, 5:00 p.m.
Tue. Jan. 7: at Florida, 5:00 p.m.
Thu. Jan. 9: at Tampa Bay, 5:00 p.m.
Fri. Jan. 10: at Carolina, 5:30 p.m.
Mon. Feb. 10: at Montreal, 5:00 p.m.
Tue. Feb. 11: at Toronto, 5:00 p.m.
Thu. Feb. 13: at Ottawa, 5:30 p.m.


I see a lot of posts on this site complaining about "small market" or "poor teams" who need to do a better job of building their fan base and revenue streams. And no one (but me apparently) is saying "Maybe the Coyotes could get a bigger TV deal if they weren't trying to sell Fox Sports Arizona a schedule where ONE THIRD OF ROAD GAMES start while their viewers are DRIVING HOME FROM WORK."

This is a good post. The 16 road game schedule against the Eastern Conference is really tough on broadcasting. This is part of the reason that I think my proposed matrix, in which there are only 12 such games, is slightly better.

Reality is that each part of the fanbase is going to have a different idea of what's most important in the schedule.

 

[Ghetty Green]

I'd prefer 8 dividsions of 4

 

[Noldo]

Not that it would be likely, but:

- play your sub-division (4 teams including your team) 6 times [18 games]
- play the remaining division (4 teams) 4 times [16 games]
- play other divisions (24 teams) 2 times [48 games]
TOTAL 82 games

Straight divisional playoffs without wildcards (possibility for 4-5 play-in if desired or subdivisional playoffs if the League wants to risk imbalances).

Biggest issue is that sub-division are next to impossible to create (3 California teams + Arizona or Vegas?, 3 New York teams + Philly (without Pittsburgh?), 3 Eastern Canadian teams + Buffalo? (where’s Boston?)

Rough guesses:
• MTL, TOR, OTT, BUF
• BOS, DET, FLA, TBL
• NYI, NYR, NJD, PHI
• PIT, WSH, CAR, CBJ
• CHI, STL, MIN, WPG
• COL, ARI, NSH, DAL
• VAN, CAL, EDM, SEA
• LAK, ANA, SJS, LVK

 

[Mike Louis]

Based on a previous post on the topic:

Schedule Format

Division - play your division 6 times (18 games total)
Conference - play rest of conference 4 times (16 games total)
Outside of Conference - play rest of league twice (48 games total)


Conference Alignment

Smythe Conference
Northwest Division: Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, Vancouver
Pacific Division: Anaheim, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Jose

Norris Conference
Southwest Division: Arizona, Colorado, Dallas, Nashville
Central Division: Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, Winnipeg

Adams Conference
Great Lakes Division: Buffalo, Detroit, Ottawa, Toronto
Northeast Division: Boston, Florida, Montreal, Tampa Bay

Patrick Conference
Metropolitan Division: New Jersey, New York I, New York R, Philadelphia
Atlantic Division: Carolina, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Washington


Stanley Cup Playoffs

Play-In Round

The 2nd and 3rd place teams in each division play each other in a play-in game (helps to solve divisional imbalances while at the same time increase the importance of finishing first in your division).

Divisional Round

The 1st place team and the winner of the divisional play-in game play each other for the division championship.

Conference Finals

The two division winners of the conference play each other for the conference championship.

Campbell / Wales Trophy Finals

The four conference champions are seeded Final Four style with the pairing involving the Smythe Conference champion playing for the Campbell Trophy and the other pairing playing for the Wales Trophy (the Final Four seeding solves the issue of Eastern and Central teams playing the Pacific teams before the Stanley Cup final)

Stanley Cup Finals

The winner of the Campbell trophy plays the winner of the Wales trophy for the Stanley Cup.

 

[LeafalCrusader]

I like the 4 conference 8 division setup as well. Schedule matrix looks good. 6 vs division, 4 vs conference, 2 vs everyone else.

 

[MNNumbers]

Based on a previous post on the topic:

Schedule Format

Division - play your division 6 times (18 games total)
Conference - play rest of conference 4 times (16 games total)
Outside of Conference - play rest of league twice (48 games total)


Conference Alignment

Smythe Conference
Northwest Division: Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, Vancouver
Pacific Division: Anaheim, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Jose

Norris Conference
Southwest Division: Arizona, Colorado, Dallas, Nashville
Central Division: Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, Winnipeg

Adams Conference
Great Lakes Division: Buffalo, Detroit, Ottawa, Toronto
Northeast Division: Boston, Florida, Montreal, Tampa Bay

Patrick Conference
Metropolitan Division: New Jersey, New York I, New York R, Philadelphia
Atlantic Division: Carolina, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Washington


Stanley Cup Playoffs

Play-In Round

The 2nd and 3rd place teams in each division play each other in a play-in game (helps to solve divisional imbalances while at the same time increase the importance of finishing first in your division).

Divisional Round

The 1st place team and the winner of the divisional play-in game play each other for the division championship.

Conference Finals

The two division winners of the conference play each other for the conference championship.

Campbell / Wales Trophy Finals

The four conference champions are seeded Final Four style with the pairing involving the Smythe Conference champion playing for the Campbell Trophy and the other pairing playing for the Wales Trophy (the Final Four seeding solves the issue of Eastern and Central teams playing the Pacific teams before the Stanley Cup final)

Stanley Cup Finals

The winner of the Campbell trophy plays the winner of the Wales trophy for the Stanley Cup.

I have seen many many ideas of this sort, and I keep asking myself the question:
What is the real draw that people have to 4-team divisions?

Let me explain the parts of this idea that I do not like:
1- 4-team divisions, and only 18 out of 82 games against the teams in your own division. If you want to know how this will end up, look at NFL football and the NFC East standings right now. NFL has 4-team divisions, and plays 6 out of 16 games against their own division. That's 38%. This proposal for NHL is 22%. Even less. Note that there is NO team anywhere close to .500 in the NFC East. That's what happens with small divisions. There is simply too much chance that 4 teams who are not very good end up together.

2- Playoff set up. Not only is there a great chance that you will have divisions with 4 bad teams, you are mandating that 2 of these teams will be in the Final 16 of the NHL playoffs. NFL doesn't even do that.

3- Play in game. One game in hockey is a complete roll of the dice. You will surely have multiple situations in the course of just a few years in which the #3 team defeats the #2 team. It's just one game, you know. But, how would it seem if, at least once a year, you had an 80 pt team (that's pretty average for a 17-24 ranked team presently - but it's bad, in reality. Just 8- pts in a loser point league is BAD) beating a 100 pt team in one game for a playoff spot. That's not a good result in my mind.

4- There is not really a good way of dividing the present 4 divisions into 8 groups. The poster here has given much advantage to Minnesota over Dallas, for example. It's much better for "BUZZ" to have Chicago and St Louis than any of Colorado, Arizona and Nashville. Likewise with the Adams. Phil and Pitts won't want to be separated, and Washington is getting a bad deal there - no New York teams, and both of Columbus and Carolina. And, it's hard to do better.

The only thing that this idea has that is positive in any way in my mind is that the entire schedule matrix is an even number of games. Being able to have that pales in comparison with the problems that I see arise as a result.

If you really want that 6-4-2, maybe you can have it. But, please, keep it within the greater context of 8-team groups. You can rotate what one poster called the 'sub-divisions' so as not to disadvantage Dallas, Phil, Pitts, Wash from year to year if you want. You can even have a rule that says that the sub-division champion is guaranteed a playoff spot. But, please don't do more than that. 4-team groups lead to awkward situations.

8 team divisions (conferences, whatever you want to call them) are much better insulated from being composed completely of weak teams.
There is no need for a play in game if the season is played in its entirety.

 

[KevFu]

I get the enticement of a 4-team division from the standpoint of: "Each team has about 3 other teams that the fans will just love more games against, but you don't really need to play all 7 division opponents 6 times each" For example, MON vs TOR, OTT, BOS six times each? That makes sense. MON vs DET, TB, FLA 6 times each? That does not.

But the two reasons we have four 8-team divisions and and not eight 4-team divisions is because we don't have eight clusters of four that make sense. Like, BUF/DET/TB/FLA in a "sub division" or whatever isn't really what BUF had in mind when TOR and BUF are so close to each other.

At the end the the day, though, what all these different 8 divisions of 4 concepts are doing is cutting down the number of games against "half your division" or making easy schedule pods for some kind of cycle; and the whole point of divisions is to play MORE GAMES IN YOUR TIME ZONE.

If you come at it from a standpoint of "We want more games in our time zone and fewest games in far away time zones" you want to cut non-conference games down and increase division/conference games. But the Central doesn't want that, so the compromise is this Home/Away with everyone. I'd prefer some kind of pod/cycle system, so it takes two years to play the whole league at home once; but the biggest flaw is the increase of "Central at Pacific" games that causes that to get voted down.


I've been saying for a decade or so now that MLB's method of scheduling is on the money: They max inventory for tickets/TV by making HALF the games against far away teams mean something in the standings, and the games that have the most blood-lust like NYY/NYM, CHC/CWS, LAA/LAD, SFG/OAK be from the pool of non-conference games.

And quite honestly, MLB has it's own issues with the Central and West, and that's why the best thing both leagues could do would be to treat it as "Four Leagues, once West, and three of the Central/East teams" (because Central teams really are East teams).

But it's easier for them than the NHL, because ARZ and COL are actual Western teams and they'd be left out of the mix.

 

[MNNumbers]

If you want a real compromise (and this won't happen, because the league has already committed to Arizona moving to the Central when Seattle joins - and that is a different discussion....more later), you would do something like this:

Each 8-team group is independent so there is no 16-team 'conference'.
All teams play 6 games vs each team in their own division = 42 games
On a 6-year rotating schedule, each division plays 4 years of home/away with each other division, and the other 2 years it's 4 teams at home and 4 teams away (only one game in these years).
Since this is completely balanced, the Central teams would have no complaints about excessive West Coast games.
Each fan base misses each out-of-division club ONE TIME in 6 years. In other words, Pittsburgh plays at Seattle 5 times in 6 years. This is so close to full home/away that injuries could have just as much negative effect on spreading the teams around as the schedule does.

Now, in addressing the Arizona situation. I think that KevFu is correct in some sense that the Central doesn't want more games on the west coast. However, the presence of the Wild Card, which mandates the 3rd game in conference, kind of kills that as a large, over-riding concept. In other words, it isn't the first, most important thing.
In regards to Arizona, the time zone arrangements would have been much neater if Col/Arz were in the Pacific, and Cgy/Edm were in the Central. The fact that the league chose to move the Coyotes instead means one of 2 things:
Either:
a) CGY and EDM have a lot more pull than Gutierrez and ARZ in all such matters, or...
b) No one is really convinced that Arizona is staying put.

I would go for a), myself. But, the fact that the more experienced owners have that kind of power again means that there is no super over-riding idea that governs the thinking in these matters, and that, ultimately, everyone is aiming for their own best interests.

That's why, if KevFu is ever going to get his idea to pass the BOG, he is going to have to come up with a plan that does 2 things:
Gives every team better home matchups, so they can make more money on local ticket sales and....
Is easy enough to understand that it is not a huge leap for the fanbase to understand the new alignment.

That's a hard ask....

 

[Mike Louis]

I have seen many many ideas of this sort, and I keep asking myself the question:
What is the real draw that people have to 4-team divisions?

Let me explain the parts of this idea that I do not like:
1- 4-team divisions, and only 18 out of 82 games against the teams in your own division. If you want to know how this will end up, look at NFL football and the NFC East standings right now. NFL has 4-team divisions, and plays 6 out of 16 games against their own division. That's 38%. This proposal for NHL is 22%. Even less. Note that there is NO team anywhere close to .500 in the NFC East. That's what happens with small divisions. There is simply too much chance that 4 teams who are not very good end up together.

2- Playoff set up. Not only is there a great chance that you will have divisions with 4 bad teams, you are mandating that 2 of these teams will be in the Final 16 of the NHL playoffs. NFL doesn't even do that.

3- Play in game. One game in hockey is a complete roll of the dice. You will surely have multiple situations in the course of just a few years in which the #3 team defeats the #2 team. It's just one game, you know. But, how would it seem if, at least once a year, you had an 80 pt team (that's pretty average for a 17-24 ranked team presently - but it's bad, in reality. Just 8- pts in a loser point league is BAD) beating a 100 pt team in one game for a playoff spot. That's not a good result in my mind.

4- There is not really a good way of dividing the present 4 divisions into 8 groups. The poster here has given much advantage to Minnesota over Dallas, for example. It's much better for "BUZZ" to have Chicago and St Louis than any of Colorado, Arizona and Nashville. Likewise with the Adams. Phil and Pitts won't want to be separated, and Washington is getting a bad deal there - no New York teams, and both of Columbus and Carolina. And, it's hard to do better.

The only thing that this idea has that is positive in any way in my mind is that the entire schedule matrix is an even number of games. Being able to have that pales in comparison with the problems that I see arise as a result.

If you really want that 6-4-2, maybe you can have it. But, please, keep it within the greater context of 8-team groups. You can rotate what one poster called the 'sub-divisions' so as not to disadvantage Dallas, Phil, Pitts, Wash from year to year if you want. You can even have a rule that says that the sub-division champion is guaranteed a playoff spot. But, please don't do more than that. 4-team groups lead to awkward situations.

8 team divisions (conferences, whatever you want to call them) are much better insulated from being composed completely of weak teams.
There is no need for a play in game if the season is played in its entirety.

Concerning the number of division and conference games, you could equalize them so that you play both your division and the rest of your conference 6 times each in order to appease the old Adams and Patrick teams. The result however will be a 90 game regular season schedule since the Central will insist on having the outside of conference games be home and home.

On to the concept of a play-in game between the 2nd and 3rd place teams in the division: If it was up to me, there wouldn’t no need for it. However there will be complaints about teams in strong divisions missing the playoffs in favor of weaker division leaders. Therefore to address that issue, I included wildcards while at the same time I introduced the play-in game as an incentive to finish in 1st place in your division.

Now concerning the potential Arizona / Calgary-Edmonton swap: 1) the league simply didn’t have the votes to happen since Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and the entire Central Division would’ve voted against it. 2) Since Arizona’s long term is still up in the air, the league figured it was easier to realign just one team than to realign four teams.

 

[MNNumbers]

Concerning the number of division and conference games, you could equalize them so that you play both your division and the rest of your conference 6 times each in order to appease the old Adams and Patrick teams. The result however will be a 90 game regular season schedule since the Central will insist on having the outside of conference games be home and home.

On to the concept of a play-in game between the 2nd and 3rd place teams in the division: If it was up to me, there wouldn’t no need for it. However there will be complaints about teams in strong divisions missing the playoffs in favor of weaker division leaders. Therefore to address that issue, I included wildcards while at the same time I introduced the play-in game as an incentive to finish in 1st place in your division.

Now concerning the potential Arizona / Calgary-Edmonton swap: 1) the league simply didn’t have the votes to happen since Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and the entire Central Division would’ve voted against it. 2) Since Arizona’s long term is still up in the air, the league figured it was easier to realign just one team than to realign four teams.

I must be missing something.
How does an 80 pt St Louis team playing a 70 pt Minnesota team in a one-game playoff, while a 95 pt Dallas team plays a 94 pt Nashville team in a one-game playoff appease anyone's argument about weak teams bing in the playoffs over strong teams?
It would seem instead that you would have to do, for example:
Southwest 2 vs Central 3 and Southwest 3 vs Central 2......as your play in games.

But, that still doesn't appease me. One game is the same as playing dice. For example, February 1980. Let the USSR play the US 10 times. One would suggest that the USSR would win at least 8 of those games. They were the better team. But, one game....... So, a one game wild card means nothing to me.

My argument still holds. 4-team groups are too small.

That's the reason that what will happen and continue to happen is that the present 8-team groups will stay, and the schedule matrix will be a 5/4 - 2. And, likely, the wild cards will disappear, because in an 8-team group, there really isn't a too argument against balance, in the way that PA thought there was in 2013.

 

[KevFu]

If you want a real compromise (and this won't happen, because the league has already committed to Arizona moving to the Central when Seattle joins - and that is a different discussion....more later), you would do something like this:

Each 8-team group is independent so there is no 16-team 'conference'.
All teams play 6 games vs each team in their own division = 42 games
On a 6-year rotating schedule, each division plays 4 years of home/away with each other division, and the other 2 years it's 4 teams at home and 4 teams away (only one game in these years).

40 games vs 24 teams would be 2 divisions H/A, 1 division home OR away in any given year. rotate through which division you only play 1 game vs and one cycle is 3 years, 2 cycles is 6 years. Yes. This works exactly how I envisioned it: We're saying the same thing in different words.

Each fan base misses each out-of-division club ONE TIME in 6 years. In other words, Pittsburgh plays at Seattle 5 times in 6 years. This is so close to full home/away that injuries could have just as much negative effect on spreading the teams around as the schedule does.

This has always been part of my argument for home/away being stupid. If the purpose of H/A is so STH can see all the teams and all their star players every year; why isn't the schedule set so that all league-wide non-conference games are done the week before the trading deadline?

 

[MNNumbers]

40 games vs 24 teams would be 2 divisions H/A, 1 division home OR away in any given year. rotate through which division you only play 1 game vs and one cycle is 3 years, 2 cycles is 6 years. Yes. This works exactly how I envisioned it: We're saying the same thing in different words.



This has always been part of my argument for home/away being stupid. If the purpose of H/A is so STH can see all the teams and all their star players every year; why isn't the schedule set so that all league-wide non-conference games are done the week before the trading deadline?

I'm sorry, Kev. My earlier reference to your ideas was about the AFC/NFC style arrangements you have suggested, in which, for example, NYR & NYI are not in the same conference, but still play each other 4 times a year. That is a complicated set up, and works be a hard sell.

The 42-40 arrangement is very easy, and is actually what should happen

 

[KevFu]

Now, in addressing the Arizona situation.

I subscribe to the belief that it's easier to get the votes for one team moving instead of three; and it's as simple as that. I doubt anyone had a "but what about relocation potential" thought process besides the people here on this board who are either supernerds that love drawing up league configurations, like @KevFu OR people who are gung-ho to get that team the hell out of Arizona.

ultimately, everyone is aiming for their own best interests.

Exactly. And the reason we have home/away right now is because that was the compromise that got the votes from people looking out for their own self interest.

That's why, if KevFu is ever going to get his idea to pass the BOG, he is going to have to come up with a plan that does 2 things:
Gives every team better home matchups, so they can make more money on local ticket sales and....
Is easy enough to understand that it is not a huge leap for the fanbase to understand the new alignment.

That's a hard ask....

I actually don't think it's that hard. I think the previous data would show making more money on ticket sales would be expected; HOW MUCH would be the debate.

The far bigger selling point is TV schedule and reducing the number of non-conference road games starting at 4 pm or 10 pm local time.

That being said, I think the travel aspect of my odd-looking three new Central/West conferences could easily be sold, too.

To recap, that was:
CAR, CBJ join the Adams (with BOS, MON, OTT, TOR, BUF, DET)
> Time zone changes, none. CBJ gets DET instead of PIT.

FLA, TB join the Norris (with WIN, MIN, CHI, STL, NSH, DAL)
> They'd get more games at the central, obviously, but less trips out West. Hockey isn't a 3.5 hour ordeal like baseball or football, it's a brisk pace, so they're done by 10:30 in regular season games anyway.

Travel wise, they make out quite well. NSH is the third-closest team to TB/FLA besides CAR and each other; there's
They're closer to STL and CHI than BUF and BOS. MIN and MON/OTT are similar distances.
They also would have one division opponent in Canada instead of three so less time spent in customs.

COL, ARZ join the Patrick (with NYR, NYI, NJD, PHI, WAS, PIT)
This is the one that sounds weird. But it's really not.

The six East Coast teams would be adding only TWO more games in a three-year cycle vs the 10 PTZ/MTZ teams in this format, but they'd play 18 of the 32 games vs the closest two opponents, and have EIGHT games drop from 10 pm starts to 9 pm starts, better for TV.

For COL and ARZ, the travel sounds horrific, but the Patrick are in a tight bunch, and the current Central isn't.

The shortest 7-game road trip through the current central in a loop would be 5261 miles (starting from either COL or ARZ).
The shortest 7-game road trip through my new Patrick in a loop would be 5183 miles. That's shorter.

It's better for players because it's one long flight East, then play games over a couple days, not traveling far between them, while EVERY TRIP in the Central division is a long one.

They can play 3 games in 5 nights in NY metro and stay in the same hotel, short bus to Philly or stuff like that.

It LOOKS crazy, but it works out to be better.

 

[KevFu]

I'm sorry, Kev. My earlier reference to your ideas was about the AFC/NFC style arrangements you have suggested, in which, for example, NYR & NYI are not in the same conference, but still play each other 4 times a year. That is a complicated set up, and works be a hard sell.

The 42-40 arrangement is very easy, and is actually what should happen

Oh, my B.

Yeah, I think in an MLB-style format (which I think MLB needs to modify to be a little more like hockey), but the concept of a W-C-E-E alignment in hockey where you play 76 to 82 games against only FIVE divisions (of four, 19 teams) and rotate through the others could work very well.

Wales Smythe
Wales Norris
Wales Adams
Wales Patrick

Campbell Smythe
Campbell Norris
Campbell Adams
Campbell Patrick

You play 4 each vs 15 Conference teams (60 games)
You play 4 each vs 4 "rival division" teams (16 games) - That's S/S, N/N, A/A, P/P
You play two teams each from the remaining divisions each year (6 games)

But the big issues for hockey is that baseball already had extended periods of time where teams didn't play, so it was never a big deal that two teams hardly ever played if at all, while in the NHL, you'd see the format and identify teams for whom you'd go from playing H/A every year to seeing them at home once every four years.

Like, Colorado would be in the one of the Norris divisions, and play the other Norris divisions (and still play ARZ, DAL, WIN, MIN, STL, CHI, NSH every year). But they might only play VGK, LA, or ANA once every two years.

 

[patnyrnyg]

As much as I would love to see teams only play 1 game against each team in the other conference, it isn't happening. Expecting it to be 2 games vs each team not in your division (48) and then 34 split amongst the 7 teams in your division. 4 vs 1 and 5 vs the other 6. Unless, they add games to the season, which doesnt seem like the NHLPA is willing to do. HOWEVER, they may to add revenues to the pot after this past season and what is upcoming.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Actually 2007/ 2008 season, thankfully they finally changed it from 8 games.

2007-08 New York Islanders Head-to-Head Results | Hockey-Reference.com

And like I said it was season ticket holders who wanted it changed across the league, the ones that pay most of the bill. The fan going to a couple of games a year has no pull really.

I find it hard to believe it was season ticket holders who wanted it changed. As a Rangers season ticket holder, I'll gladly sacrifice home games against the West for more games against the Flyers, Isles, Devils, etc. I loved that format. I know it will never go back to that, but wish it would.

 

[Ringmaster]

I find it hard to believe it was season ticket holders who wanted it changed. As a Rangers season ticket holder, I'll gladly sacrifice home games against the West for more games against the Flyers, Isles, Devils, etc. I loved that format. I know it will never go back to that, but wish it would.

Season ticket holders out west

People in Chicago, Los Angeles, Denver, St. Louis want to see Detroit, NYR, Philly, Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston.

In Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton they want to see Toronto, Montreal, Pittsburgh(Crosby), Washington(ovie), Detroit, Boston.

I think Crosby and Ovechkin used to come to Western Canada every 3 years and people were unhappy.


Edit: Divisional games were 8 times a year!!! Nobody out west wanted too see Phoenix, Nashville(back than), Columbus, Minnesota 4 times a year in their building over the favorable eastern teams!!!!