Is any one else annoyed by the current NHL schedule? I have designed a new alignment for the league with fans in mind. To me it is almost perfect. The obvious fault requiring more travel for teams because they have to go to every NHL city at least once a year is a by-product of making the schedule better.
10 Three team Divisions
West
1. Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver
2. LA, Anaheim, San Jose
3. Phoenix, Dallas, Colorado
4. Detroit, Columbus, Minnesota
5. St. Louis, Chicago, Nashville
East
6. Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal
7. Pittsburg, Philadephia, Carolina
8. Rangers, Islanders, Devils
9. Boston, Washington, Buffalo
10. Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay
Each division plays teams in its own division 8 times (16 games)
Each division has two other divisions it plays 4 times (24 games)
Each division plays remaining teams (21) twice. (42 games)
Voila - 82 games schedule.
2006-11-01 06:51:39 · 4 answers · asked by jeff t 2 in Sports ➔ Hockey
As an example of who plays who.
WEST
Div. 1 plays 2 & 6
Div. 2 plays 1 & 3
Div. 3 plays 2 & 4
Div. 4 plays 3 & 5
Div. 5 plays 4 & 10
EAST
Div. 6 plays 1 & 9
Div. 7 plays 8 & 10
Div. 8 plays 7 & 9
Div. 9 plays 6 & 8
Div. 10 plays 5 & 7
The beauty of this system is that you play every team twice a year so you wouldn't go three years without seeing you favorite team. It also takes away boring teams that currently have 8 match ups a year. It perfectly balances the Canadian teams increasing the Canada v. Canada games by 27 total games.
Playoff format should remain 16 teams making the playoffs. Eight from each division but it would remove division winners from automatic spots. 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7 etc...
The owners would never buy into a system like this but it would be a dream for the average fan. I would like to get any feedback on my proposal before submitting it for NHL approval.
JT
2006-11-01 06:52:19 · update #1
Not a bad idea as far as schedule balance, but I really don't like the idea of 3-team divisions. Maybe you could enhance the size of the divisions without giving up the weighted schedule as you currently have it. Otherwise, I just think the standings will look odd, and not rewarding the division winners in any way will make the divisions almost meaningless.
Better to lump more teams together, but keep the "unofficial" groupings that you've created when it comes to scheduling. That would allow you, if needed, to just have conference standings that reflect the playoff standings clearly.
2006-11-01 07:28:15 · answer #1 · answered by Craig S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your idea is a good one but I have to disagree on the amount of divisions. With the current roster of thirty teams, I feel that the NHL should establish a ten team, three division, non-geographic format similar to that employed by the English Premier League in soccer. The top four finishers could qualify for the playoffs and the prospect of starting the next season in a lower league could inspire owners to become more competitive. The "A" Division can be set up to be more incentive-laden than "B" Division, and "B" more than "C". The NHL has the market cornered on professional suicide and stupidity. What ever they do is sure to undermine what little popularity they've accidentally stumbled upon or foolishly priced themselves out of. In the end, the league will have to reduce the amount of teams, it's a natural occurrence in the business world. Although I have benefitted as a fan due to the expansion of 1966, I feel that the league has too many teams and too many fringe players that result in a low level of parity. Not to mention that I don't like parity.
2006-11-01 10:20:24 · answer #2 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The obvious, you have too much time on your hands.. lol.. jk.. seriously, the NHL is apparently going over this in their board meetings this week (So says TSN.) Apparently the schedules are an issue when you dont even play all the teams every year.
I like your design though, makes sense.
2006-11-01 06:58:08 · answer #3 · answered by acezr2wild 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
nice
2006-11-01 06:53:39 · answer #4 · answered by valgal115 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋