Will the NHL change the schedule for 21-22?

[MoreOrr]

They'll just bump the season to 84 games and call it good.

7 divisional opponents x 4 games = 28
8 conference opponents x 3 games = 24
16 non-conference opponents x 2 games = 32

Total 84

This is the most likely if the League will agree to it. If not then then that 24 will simply be a 22.

 

[Legionnaire11]

I like 84, it's been done before with the neutral site games. It adds another 32 games of revenue to the schedule and gives superstars two extra games to add a couple of points each season. All positives.

Negatives would be injury risk, travel expenses and lengthening a season that many casual fans find tedious already.


I think the pros outweigh the cons.

 

[Suntouchable13]

Playoffs are divisional now, yet you play teams inside your divisions only 4 times each? Doesn’t make sense.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

Probably won't happen for revenue reasons, but I'd like to see the NHL eliminate divisions, just have East and West conferences. 1-8 in each conference gets into the playoffs. Reduce the schedule to 77 games.

3 games x 15 = 45 games against conference opponents.
2 games x 16 = 32 games against non-conference opponents.

You'd have fewer back to backs, which would lead to higher quality games, or an easier time scheduling around the Olympics. Plus I think this would generate fresh new rivalries based on playoff matchups rather than forcing the constant divisional matchups.

 

[tarheelhockey]

NHL priority #1 - increase revenue
NHL priority #2 - decrease travel costs
NHL priority #3 - player health

If your proposal isn't working in this order, it's not viable.

 

[tony d]

I know they've said they're going to stick with 4 divisions but I wish they'd go to 8 4 team divisions when Seattle comes in.

Do the schedule as follows:

6 games vs. divisional rivals (18)
4 games vs. conference rivals (48)
1 game vs. other conference rival (16)

 

[Cotton]

With Seattle joining the league as the 32nd team, I could see the NHL reducing travel costs and time spent travelling by going back to a regular season schedule where Eastern teams only play teams from the West once per season.

42 games within division (6 games x 7 teams)
24 games against the other in-conference division (3 games x 8 teams)
16 out of conference games (1 game x 16 teams)

That would be great.

 

[BruinsFan37]

This is the most likely if the League will agree to it. If not then then that 24 will simply be a 22.

If they're tied to an 82-game season one thing they could do is do away with conferences and only have divisons

7 divisional opponents x 4 games = 28
24 non-divisional opponents x 2 games = 48

Total = 76

For the final six games to bring it up to 82 each team would play an additional home-and-home versus the similarly ranked team in the other divisions. i.e. the team that finishes 1st in the Atlantic would play (the next season) an additional home-and-home versus the teams that finished 1st in the other divisions. The 2nd place team would play against the other 2nd place teams, and so on.

 

[GKJ]

One of the major complaints from the last time they changed the schedule after the 2004-05 lockout was markets were being shut out of seeing star players in their town, so I can't see that changing, which is magnified if someone gets hurt.

A lot of this goes hand-in-hand with making your star players true superstars and making an event out of them coming to town. Imagine if they did this in the NBA, and LeBron, Curry, Giannis, etc. only show up every other year. The league makes huge bank on those games. If the NHL were able to make stars with any similarity, this would never be a viable discussion.

When it comes to divisional opponents and rivalries, that's really only done through the playoffs, with very few exceptions based on history.

 

[The Macho King]

i can't. i think the nhl will make teams play an additional 2 games from the 82 they play now.

Good luck getting the NHLPA to agree.

 

[SwaggySpungo]

I like 84, it's been done before with the neutral site games. It adds another 32 games of revenue to the schedule and gives superstars two extra games to add a couple of points each season. All positives.

Negatives would be injury risk, travel expenses and lengthening a season that many casual fans find tedious already.


I think the pros outweigh the cons.

Season is too long as it is. If you want more points, increase scoring.

 

[hockeyguru]

Good luck getting the NHLPA to agree.

thanks. i won't need it though.

 

[treple13]

Zero chance of home and home with each team not happening.

I do wish they'd be more efficient with road trips to lessen travel though. Teams should have two cross conference road trips a year and just knock off all those games then.

 

[Curufinwe]

Plus strictly divisional playoffs (top 4 in each division). Sign me up.

That would be great for the crappy Atlantic, not so good for the much stronger Metro.

 

[sabresfan65]

Eliminate conferences (or go with 4 conferences instead of divisions)

Home and home against other divisions (2*24=48)
5 vs 7 division foes would be 35 for a total of 83 (could stay at 82 by playing 4 against one team)

Playoffs- top 4 in division (no wild cards, no crossovers)

4 Division winners reseeded for Semi-Finals: 1vs4 and 2vs3

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

I hope not, 6 games against the same teams - 1 game against each team in the other conference << 4 games against the same teams - 2 games against each team in the other conference.

Watching 6 games against the same teams became more like a chore, when they had it before. It's like your whole hockey world is within the division, yuck. Not to pick on Washington, but just as an example, with them being in the same division when we played division teams 6 times, after a while I wanted to do anything but see Florida play Washington again.
And I enjoy it more seeing 2 games against each team in the other conference instead of 1.

Nah I like it. Playing in the conference and division a bunch and in a short time is how you make rivalries come back to life , something which has been dying in the NHL lately. Just look at recent matchups between the Oilers/Flames and Rangers/Islanders .

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Nah I like it. Playing in the conference and division a bunch and in a short time is how you make rivalries come back to life , something which has been dying in the NHL lately. Just look at recent matchups between the Oilers/Flames and Rangers/Islanders .

That's not hockey to me. That's a part of hockey. It's nice, but it's not the end all be all. No need to sacrifice everything for that. Heck, that Oilers/Flames thing was amusing, but even with that I didn't give more than a few minutes of my time.
It's like watching the same game over and over to make up a large chunk of your season. That's the opposite of entertaining to me.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

That's not hockey to me. That's a part of hockey. It's nice, but it's not the end all be all. No need to sacrifice everything for that. Heck, that Oilers/Flames thing was amusing, but even with that I didn't give more than a few minutes of my time.
It's like watching the same game over and over to make up a large chunk of your season. That's the opposite of entertaining to me.

I don’t need to see my east coast team play the Ducks or the Oilers twice a year. Replacing one or both of those games with a division or at least conference rival, a game that actually has stakes, is a positive. Cuts down on travel too. I don’t see how that’s “sacrificing everything”.

 

[Flukeshot]

I agree with the elimination of divisions and going with 4 conferences.

2 x 24 = 48 non-conference games
4 x 7 = 28 conference games

While I would be good to stop there are 76 games I agree with @tarheelhockey that maximizing revenue is a guiding principle.

Reduce to 80 but go with 4 rivalry games. Rivalries would help sell out games and build media hype.

For the Canadian markets it could mean an extra game vs your non conf CDN teams. Get Detroit and Chicago to play more often... Get Arizona to play... Umm teams willing to play Arizona. Whatever makes more $ and better TV and fan experience.

Playoffs are strict 1v4, 2v3, reseed for final 4.

Removing 2 games from schedule would also allow for a 4v5 play in if the league really wanted.

Here's my kicker. Draft pick ranking would be based off of only the 2x24 outer conf games and 2 first x 7 conf games, eliminating the 3rd and 4th conf games from the ranking. That way draft ranking is based on a 2x balanced schedule.

 

[vladdy16]

Endure?

Chartered 1st class planes?!! real rough stuff there for travel LOL....

Yeah, being a professional athlete isn't taxxing at all...

 

[NoShowWilly]

7 x 4 = 28
24 x 2 = 48

76 games. add 5th team in each division to playoffs to make up some revenue.

else

15 x 4 = 60
16 x 1 = 16

76 games. lose the divisions. two conferences. top 8 or else again do top

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

I don’t need to see my east coast team play the Ducks or the Oilers twice a year. Replacing one or both of those games with a division or at least conference rival, a game that actually has stakes, is a positive. Cuts down on travel too. I don’t see how that’s “sacrificing everything”.

Every game has stakes. All 82. There's more to hockey than just seeing the same teams in the division over and over again. That's not interesting to me, that's not entertaining to me. I'd much rather see western conference teams 2 times instead of seeing the same teams 6 times instead of 4.
Seeing the same teams 6 times has been done, and it was chore. And travel is not a big deal, I've worked for decades year round in all kinds of conditions and I'm still fine. They can handle some travel for parts of 6 months out of the year.

 

[The Panther]

With Seattle joining the league as the 32nd team, I could see the NHL reducing travel costs and time spent travelling by going back to a regular season schedule where Eastern teams only play teams from the West once per season.

42 games within division (6 games x 7 teams)
24 games against the other in-conference division (3 games x 8 teams)
16 out of conference games (1 game x 16 teams)

Yes, I hope so. The NHL is too damn big now for any one fan to follow, and I think they need to start dividing everything into effectively two "Leagues" (or whatever you wanna call it) within the NHL, much as MLB did with its two.

I also think they should consider having separate awards (MVP and whatnot) for each "League"... again, as MLB does.

You can probably guess I'm in total favor of more intra-divisional play and playoffs. What a travesty that the Islanders and Rangers haven't met in the playoffs in 25 years, the Oilers and Flames in 29 years, etc., etc. It's just mind-boggingly stupid.

 

[Fireball23]

i can't. i think the nhl will make teams play an additional 2 games from the 82 they play now.

Switch out 2 games in the preseason would be a fair trade for games.