Reduced NHL Schedule? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Nikilidstrom · 04-24-2004, 04:24 PM

Anyone see the idea that has been brought up, and agreed upon, by both the League owners and NHLPA? They are discussing reducing the schedule to 72 games, with NO interconference play. There will be 8 games played against each divisional rival, and 4 games played against the remaining teams in the conference. No more Toronto travelling to Edmonton, Calgary, or Vancouver. No more Wings/Leafs original 6 battles.
Not to mention teams like Tampa Bay who have an insanely weak division will be at a huge advantage pointswise. I'm all for a reduced schedule if the players agree to it, but why rip out any remaining tradition in the league. Just because Bettman is a balless wonder, doesn't mean he has to castrate the NHL as well.

Hrothgar · 04-24-2004, 04:53 PM

Cool. My wish for total league abolishment is taking shape.

silent_jay · 04-24-2004, 04:59 PM

I'll ignore that last statement, and just say that Betteman is trying to kill this game, why reduce the schedule at all? Let the fans see what they want, the classic match ups, and what about new rivalries, they will have no time to even develop. Also are the players going to fork over 12 games worth of salary because of this? Of course they like the idea they get paid the same amount to do less work, don't we all want that?

Kaos · 04-24-2004, 07:39 PM

I'm actually in favor of reducing the schedule. I think it will reduce the number or fatigue induced injuries and the players won't be as wasted by the end of the regular season, and we will get even better playoff hockey with less players out from injuries.

But to remove interconference play is garbage. Some teams of the original six won't get to play each other if this happens. For example, Toronto not getting to play against Detroit in the regular season?? That's rediculous.

bond007 · 04-24-2004, 08:55 PM

enjoy the NHL (this year) while it lasts... 'cause there's gonna be a very lengthy work stoppage next year!

metalgeek · 04-25-2004, 03:31 AM

problem is, certain teams (Ie the lightning) will have a much easier schedule, while other divisions, will be much more difficult.
As well, I can't see the Canadian teams liking this, as the games between Canadian teams are always big draws.
We really need to get rid of Bettman.

minusthesoul · 04-25-2004, 10:48 AM

Ive been hoping for this for a while. The NHL season lasts way too long. Longer than any other sport when you count the training camps and everything the players have to do. I dont like getting rid of interconference play but the length of season should change.

Ace_O_Spades · 04-25-2004, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by minusthesoul
Ive been hoping for this for a while. The NHL season lasts way too long. Longer than any other sport when you count the training camps and everything the players have to do. I dont like getting rid of interconference play but the length of season should change.

read: baseball

personally i have no problem with the length of the season... but reducing it by 10 games WOULD take it right out of my exams, which would make me happy

lady · 04-25-2004, 05:42 PM

the idea of shorting the schedule is great but the fact that it could only be interconference play is bullshit. i think that they need to get rid of bettman and have someone canadian run the league rather than some corporate american idiot that knows nothing of our game. plus the work stoppage could prove to be a good thing cuz then teams in places there shouldnt be teams, eg. Nashville, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Miami, Dallas, Phoenix, Carolina and all the teams in Caifornia except LA since they've been around for a while, this stoppage will likely cause some of these teams to fold and that would be good.... BTW this is LADY's b/f

ppalvar · 04-26-2004, 04:31 PM

If one of the problems is teams going bankrupt, what is the point of shortening the season? I think a better idea would be to scale back on the number of teams, the talent in the league is far to watered down now.

silent_jay · 04-26-2004, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ppalvar
... I think a better idea would be to scale back on the number of teams, the talent in the league is far to watered down now.

I couldn't agree more. Simply look at the drift that is playing in the league today, most of them wouldn't have made it as stick boys back in the day.

Serpent · 04-26-2004, 06:06 PM

Here is the problem, hockey needs exposure in order to gain talent. Kids have to idolize people on their local team to play hockey. This may take some time in certain areas, but in order to gain talent it is important to expose as many people as possible NOT only just canadians. Hell the best athelte in the world in my opinion is an american (lance armostrong), plus our population is quite larger then canada's so given time the league will get more talented hockey player.s

silent_jay · 04-26-2004, 06:15 PM

Hockey needs exposure, kids need to idolize players on local teams, what kind of teams? Surely not NHL teams because not everyone has a local NHL team. So you're basically saying that in order for their to be more talented players in the NHL they need to come from the states? Where does Lance Armstrong fit into this? If this is a Canadian-American thing you are way off base, hockey doesn't need exposure, and exposure has nothing to do with the talent pool, the talent pool is down because of the amount of teams in the league, and no amount of "exposure" is going to fix this. I'm really lost with your post, it went in so many different directions I don't know what it was all about, but I think I got the point. sort of.

Tempboy · 04-26-2004, 11:23 PM

what a stupid idea. no inter-conference play will make for a boring regular season...playing the same teams over and over and over..

silent_jay · 04-27-2004, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tempboy
what a stupid idea. no inter-conference play will make for a boring regular season...playing the same teams over and over and over..

couldn't agree more.

Quadraton · 04-27-2004, 07:17 AM

I don't mind having a shorter season. That just means that the Playoffs will come that much sooner.

As for interconference play, there's nothing wrong that, so long as the League can get its scheduling down. No more of this back and forth across the continent within a short time period. If you're going to send a team across the continent, at least keep them there for a good two weeks before sending them back.

And while I'm on the subject, no team should have to play 10+ straight road games right at the end of the season before they go into the Playoffs. There's enough home games that everybody can share.

00111000 · 04-27-2004, 09:49 AM

I don't like either of the ideas, but can see where shortening the season may help a bit. The idea of getting rid of a few teams is good. Less teams == more rivals == more exciting games. I just don't think hockey will ever be popular with the masses here in the states. A lot of people just don't have the patience to learn the rules, those who do however, find an amazing sport. It will never get the exposure it needs to compete on tv...hell, the friggin XFL had more viewers! One more thing...BETTMAN IS THE ONE WHO IS THE BALL LICKER!!

04-24-2004, 04:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
Nikilidstrom Stick it in your five hole! Location: Michigan, USA	Reduced NHL Schedule? Anyone see the idea that has been brought up, and agreed upon, by both the League owners and NHLPA? They are discussing reducing the schedule to 72 games, with NO interconference play. There will be 8 games played against each divisional rival, and 4 games played against the remaining teams in the conference. No more Toronto travelling to Edmonton, Calgary, or Vancouver. No more Wings/Leafs original 6 battles. Not to mention teams like Tampa Bay who have an insanely weak division will be at a huge advantage pointswise. I'm all for a reduced schedule if the players agree to it, but why rip out any remaining tradition in the league. Just because Bettman is a balless wonder, doesn't mean he has to castrate the NHL as well.

04-24-2004, 04:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
Hrothgar He's My Girl Location: The Champagne Douche	Cool. My wish for total league abolishment is taking shape. __________________ The fortunes of war favored Hrothgar.

04-24-2004, 04:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	I'll ignore that last statement, and just say that Betteman is trying to kill this game, why reduce the schedule at all? Let the fans see what they want, the classic match ups, and what about new rivalries, they will have no time to even develop. Also are the players going to fork over 12 games worth of salary because of this? Of course they like the idea they get paid the same amount to do less work, don't we all want that? __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

04-25-2004, 03:31 AM	#6 (permalink)
metalgeek Insane Location: Calgary	problem is, certain teams (Ie the lightning) will have a much easier schedule, while other divisions, will be much more difficult. As well, I can't see the Canadian teams liking this, as the games between Canadian teams are always big draws. We really need to get rid of Bettman. __________________ The truth is, wherever you choose to be, it's the wrong place. Chuck Palahniuk , Diary

04-25-2004, 10:48 AM	#7 (permalink)
minusthesoul Upright	Ive been hoping for this for a while. The NHL season lasts way too long. Longer than any other sport when you count the training camps and everything the players have to do. I dont like getting rid of interconference play but the length of season should change. __________________ "When I played pool I was like a good psychiatrist. I cured them of all their daydreams and delusions." -- Minnesota Fats

04-24-2004, 07:39 PM	#4 (permalink)
Kaos Ssssssssss Location: Ontario	I'm actually in favor of reducing the schedule. I think it will reduce the number or fatigue induced injuries and the players won't be as wasted by the end of the regular season, and we will get even better playoff hockey with less players out from injuries. But to remove interconference play is garbage. Some teams of the original six won't get to play each other if this happens. For example, Toronto not getting to play against Detroit in the regular season?? That's rediculous.

04-24-2004, 08:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
bond007 Junkie Location: too far from Texas	enjoy the NHL (this year) while it lasts... 'cause there's gonna be a very lengthy work stoppage next year!

04-25-2004, 05:42 PM	#9 (permalink)
lady Addict Location: Vancouver, BC	the idea of shorting the schedule is great but the fact that it could only be interconference play is bullshit. i think that they need to get rid of bettman and have someone canadian run the league rather than some corporate american idiot that knows nothing of our game. plus the work stoppage could prove to be a good thing cuz then teams in places there shouldnt be teams, eg. Nashville, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Miami, Dallas, Phoenix, Carolina and all the teams in Caifornia except LA since they've been around for a while, this stoppage will likely cause some of these teams to fold and that would be good.... BTW this is LADY's b/f __________________ Our doubts are traitors, And make us lose the good we oft might win By fearing to attempt.

04-26-2004, 04:31 PM	#10 (permalink)
ppalvar Upright	If one of the problems is teams going bankrupt, what is the point of shortening the season? I think a better idea would be to scale back on the number of teams, the talent in the league is far to watered down now.

04-26-2004, 06:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
Serpent Insane Location: florida	Here is the problem, hockey needs exposure in order to gain talent. Kids have to idolize people on their local team to play hockey. This may take some time in certain areas, but in order to gain talent it is important to expose as many people as possible NOT only just canadians. Hell the best athelte in the world in my opinion is an american (lance armostrong), plus our population is quite larger then canada's so given time the league will get more talented hockey player.s

04-26-2004, 06:15 PM	#13 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	Hockey needs exposure, kids need to idolize players on local teams, what kind of teams? Surely not NHL teams because not everyone has a local NHL team. So you're basically saying that in order for their to be more talented players in the NHL they need to come from the states? Where does Lance Armstrong fit into this? If this is a Canadian-American thing you are way off base, hockey doesn't need exposure, and exposure has nothing to do with the talent pool, the talent pool is down because of the amount of teams in the league, and no amount of "exposure" is going to fix this. I'm really lost with your post, it went in so many different directions I don't know what it was all about, but I think I got the point. sort of. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

04-26-2004, 11:23 PM	#14 (permalink)
Tempboy Insane Location: The Red Mile	what a stupid idea. no inter-conference play will make for a boring regular season...playing the same teams over and over and over..

04-27-2004, 07:17 AM	#16 (permalink)
Quadraton Addict Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada	I don't mind having a shorter season. That just means that the Playoffs will come that much sooner. As for interconference play, there's nothing wrong that, so long as the League can get its scheduling down. No more of this back and forth across the continent within a short time period. If you're going to send a team across the continent, at least keep them there for a good two weeks before sending them back. And while I'm on the subject, no team should have to play 10+ straight road games right at the end of the season before they go into the Playoffs. There's enough home games that everybody can share. __________________ "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire

04-27-2004, 09:49 AM	#17 (permalink)
00111000 Psycho Location: Mostly standing in a blue semi-circle	I don't like either of the ideas, but can see where shortening the season may help a bit. The idea of getting rid of a few teams is good. Less teams == more rivals == more exciting games. I just don't think hockey will ever be popular with the masses here in the states. A lot of people just don't have the patience to learn the rules, those who do however, find an amazing sport. It will never get the exposure it needs to compete on tv...hell, the friggin XFL had more viewers! One more thing...BETTMAN IS THE ONE WHO IS THE BALL LICKER!!