Critics of the NHL divisional style schedule have been complaining since it was implemented. I've read about it quite a lot in the past couple of years... about the NHL expanding to an 84 game schedule in order to have 6 games against division opponents, 3 games against conference opponents, and a home and home in intra-conference games.
Part of me thinks its a good idea as long as they remove a pre-season game or two, but I think the players may be against 2 extra games.
Also, in the 1993-94 season, didn't the NHL have an 84 game schedule? How come none of these main stream writers and critics of the idea are mentioning this?
ESPN.com just put up an article pushing for this 84 game schedule also.
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3131191&name=hradek_ej&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3131191%26name%3dhradek_ej
2007-11-28 07:26:44 · 10 answers · asked by Garys Basem3nt 2 in Sports ➔ Hockey
- I just realized while browsing through NHL Seasons in wikipedia - Critics don't talk about the 84 game 92-94 seasons because they only had 24, then 26 teams. So the schedule was a bit different then the even 15 and 15 in each conference now.
2007-11-28 08:22:43 · update #1
As long as they play every team in the league at home and on the road its a good idea.
2007-11-28 07:31:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
In 1992-93 the NHL played an 82 game schedule with 2 'neutral' site games
(24 teams, 4 divisions of 6)
8 games against your own division (5x8 = 40 games)
3 games against the remaining teams in the conference (6x3 = 18 games)
2 games against teams in the other conference (12x2 = 24 games)
2 neutral site games against non-divisional teams (2 games)
In 1993-94 the same with some alteration to accomodate Florida and Anaheim
I think each team should play each team in their division 8x (32 games) and then play the other 25 teams twice each (home and away). But sadly, this idea has already been shot down as 'too many non-conference games'
2007-11-28 16:33:56 · answer #2 · answered by Like I'm Telling You Who I A 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Meh. 84 games, 82 games, practically the same thing. The only thing that concerns me is, pre-season games are used to try out your new lines and new players. I wonder if owners and coaches would feel at a disadvantage if they lost out on more pre-season play.
Yes, you are correct about the 92-93 and the 93-94 season having 84 games. I have no idea why they are not comparing this to the these seasons a little over a decade ago.
2007-11-28 15:44:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
They played 84 games in both 1992-93 and 1993-94.
I don't mind adding a few games if it means a proper balance is given to the schedule, and as long as it gives fans in every city a chance to see each team.
2007-11-28 15:40:33 · answer #4 · answered by Craig S 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It would require an act of God to get the owners to reduce the number of games in a season. I'm not surprised at the possibility of an 84 game schedule. For all intents and purposes anyone would be hard pressed to come up with an equal or better solution.
2007-11-28 15:53:19 · answer #5 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It does make sense.
6 games in the division x 4 teams = 24
3games x the other 10 teams in the conference= 30
(you can alternate amongst divisions each year for the extra home game
2 games in the other conference for 30 more for a total of 84
I like it, I miss seeing all western teams at least once a year at home.
2007-11-28 15:40:36 · answer #6 · answered by cdn24fan 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I would disapprove. That's 2 games too many for me. I don't know why I don't like it, but I would be in favor of actually shortening the season. 84 games is too much.
LITY: You're just saying that because the Hawks own the Wings this year lol.
2007-11-28 16:39:16 · answer #7 · answered by N/A 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Personally when I first read the question.. I thought MORE games! Heck they already play till June! But after reading some of the comments I guess I would have to agree that IF they played every team and it was more balanced I guess I would be in agreement of it!
2007-11-28 15:49:41 · answer #8 · answered by jeffwar03 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't think it's a good idea. As much as I'd love to see more east cost teams playing west coast teams and more hockey games, there's the playoffs to take into account here. By the end of the finals guys are dead. I don't think making them play more would be helpful but harmful to the players.
2007-11-28 16:56:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Eh... i just dont see what difference it would make honestly
2007-11-28 19:47:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋