Pierre the Great Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 why just 2? How about 85 a nice big round number or 90. but 84? i'm puzzled. http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/mckenzie/?id=228124 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 why just 2? How about 85 a nice big round number or 90. but 84? i'm puzzled. http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/mckenzie/?id=228124 That way yocan play every team in the league twice I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 That way yocan play every team in the league twice I believe. i i see now, this must be "the messiah of hockey needs to see the people" amendment. got it. makes sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Shitty schedule, we need to petition to have them more balanced. Maybe so that we can play division rivals 12 times per season. Until Boston folds, we'd be an automatic playoff team year after year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Stealth Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Shitty schedule, we need to petition to have them more balanced. Maybe so that we can play division rivals 12 times per season. Until Boston folds, we'd be an automatic playoff team year after year. Not if the Bruins signed JAN BULIS. They'll also get RADEK BONK and those two will form the most deadliest duo the league has EVER seen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Here's the most sensible idea: 2 games vs. every team in the other conference, home and away. --> 30 games 6 games against teams in your division, 3 home and 3 away. -- 24 3 games against teams in your conference. --> 30 games Total is 84 games and every team plays in every city. Alternate years on who gets the 2 home games during in-conference play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mils Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Here's the most sensible idea: 2 games vs. every team in the other conference, home and away. --> 30 games 6 games against teams in your division, 3 home and 3 away. -- 24 3 games against teams in your conference. --> 30 games Total is 84 games and every team plays in every city. Alternate years on who gets the 2 home games during in-conference play. If only the NHL had so much sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Stealth Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 If only the NHL had so much sense. As long as Buttman's there, how could you possibly think anything would be done right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Crosby just this year made his western debut . He's the selling ambassador to the game. Why did it take so long? Ovechkin and most likely Tavares too. I think the NHL wants to give each market a view of players and rivalries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan84 Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I'm ok with the 84 game schedule. Playing every team at least twice would be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I like how everyone was originally opposed to this idea but now it's seriously being discussed. Way to be freakin' consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 26, 2008 Author Share Posted January 26, 2008 its two extra games, i don't know this could controversial. now if they went to a 100 game schedule.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 this is premised on them shortening the preseason, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 27, 2008 Author Share Posted January 27, 2008 this is premised on them shortening the preseason, no? how long is the preseason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Kosmos Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I think they ought to erduce the number of games yet still play home and away against every other team in the league. Probably not going to happen, but a fool can dream, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I hope that they start the season earlier and not end it later. June is too late for hockey and we all are so dieing for it to start up come September. Playing all teams twice is a fine idea, but what I really wish they would change is the playoff system. I hate that the top 8 teams in a conference aren't in the playoffs. So what if no team from one division makes it , or places 7th so they don't get home ice. At least the best teams are in and we get the better entertainment (in theory). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I hope that they start the season earlier and not end it later. June is too late for hockey and we all are so dieing for it to start up come September. Playing all teams twice is a fine idea, but what I really wish they would change is the playoff system. I hate that the top 8 teams in a conference aren't in the playoffs. So what if no team from one division makes it , or places 7th so they don't get home ice. At least the best teams are in and we get the better entertainment (in theory). I agree but at least 2 teams will make the playoffs from every division this year you can bank on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I agree but at least 2 teams will make the playoffs from every division this year you can bank on it. Washinton and Carolina you think? Very possible, but to give one 3rd instead of 6th means they get home ice vs 6th, actually 5th overall instead of no ice advantage vs 3rd overall. I don't get that part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Washinton and Carolina you think? Very possible, but to give one 3rd instead of 6th means they get home ice vs 6th, actually 5th overall instead of no ice advantage vs 3rd overall. I don't get that part. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 hahaha, thats too funny. I have previously suggested for them to add 2 games to play every team at least once. I hope that they start the season earlier and not end it later. June is too late for hockey and we all are so dieing for it to start up come September. Playing all teams twice is a fine idea, but what I really wish they would change is the playoff system. I hate that the top 8 teams in a conference aren't in the playoffs. So what if no team from one division makes it , or places 7th so they don't get home ice. At least the best teams are in and we get the better entertainment (in theory). I heard Millbury on TV saying they cant add more games because it would get to hot in most US cities. The moron never considered that they could just start the season a week earlier. johnnyhasbeen unfortunately I cant see that ever being changed under Bettmans regime. That rule is solely there for Americans so I cant see Bettman changing it anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I've said on here before that I think the NHL should adopt an 84 game schedule. I read somewhere that this means they're going to take 1 or 2 weeks off the pre-season if this does happen. As for the other point, I don't see whats wrong with rewarding division winners. Every other league out there does it, why not the NHL? If you're not going to give an incentive, why not just abolish divisions altogether? If you're not going to reward the winners then there isn't much point in having them, is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 The "Every other league out there does it" is actually totally wrong. Although other leagues do reward division winners they dont do it like Gery Bettman does it. Keep in mind that the other leagues are basically all American. The other leagues dont need a way to ensure that all the Canadian teams get knocked out of the playoffs ASAP. Basketball rewards division leaders, but they actually get what spot they are in. Its not possible in the NBA for a 9th place overall but division winner to be 3rd place with home game advantage. Case in point just look at the current standings. Utah is 4th not 3rd. In MLB its often the Redsox vs Yanks in the ACLS. The ACLS is round 2 eh. Thats only possible because 1 of them isnt instantly 4th place because they arent a division leader. If MLB did it like Bettman either the Yanks or Bosox with their crazy huge payrolls would be out in the ALDS every year. Its completely retreaded the NHL does it. It only serves 1 purpose: it almost guarantees the Canadian teams knock each other out of the playoffs ASAP. If the playoffs started right now, the Habs & Sens would meet 2nd rnd. If the Habs could be better than 4th place the Habs would play the Sens in 3rd rnd when the 1st place team gets to play the 2nd place. With the current set up its almost impossible for 2 Canadian teams to play each other in the 3rd rnd. In 2002 it almost happened, but it didnt. Theres really only 1 scenario where it could actually happen. All 3 Can teams in the Conf need to make the playoffs, and none can be the Div leader. Then all 3 teams need to win 1st rnd, and then 2 need to win 2nd rnd. Like that ever happens. Most playoffs Canadians are lucky to see just 1 Can team make 3rd rnd. Whens the last time 2 Canadian teams played each other in the 3rd round? Its actually easier for 2 Can teams to play for the Stanley Cup which hasnt happened since 1989 Habs vs Flames. I'm not positive, but I'd bet 2 Can teams havent met in the 3rd rnd since the current method was introduced, but was common in the 80's. Gee I wonder why that ghey rule exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mils Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 The "Every other league out there does it" is actually totally wrong. Although other leagues do reward division winners they dont do it like Gery Bettman does it. Keep in mind that the other leagues are basically all American. The other leagues dont need a way to ensure that all the Canadian teams get knocked out of the playoffs ASAP. Basketball rewards division leaders, but they actually get what spot they are in. Its not possible in the NBA for a 9th place overall but division winner to be 3rd place with home game advantage. Case in point just look at the current standings. Utah is 4th not 3rd. In MLB its often the Redsox vs Yanks in the ACLS. The ACLS is round 2 eh. Thats only possible because 1 of them isnt instantly 4th place because they arent a division leader. If MLB did it like Bettman either the Yanks or Bosox with their crazy huge payrolls would be out in the ALDS every year. Its completely retreaded the NHL does it. It only serves 1 purpose: it almost guarantees the Canadian teams knock each other out of the playoffs ASAP. If the playoffs started right now, the Habs & Sens would meet 2nd rnd. If the Habs could be better than 4th place the Habs would play the Sens in 3rd rnd when the 1st place team gets to play the 2nd place. With the current set up its almost impossible for 2 Canadian teams to play each other in the 3rd rnd. In 2002 it almost happened, but it didnt. Theres really only 1 scenario where it could actually happen. All 3 Can teams in the Conf need to make the playoffs, and none can be the Div leader. Then all 3 teams need to win 1st rnd, and then 2 need to win 2nd rnd. Like that ever happens. Most playoffs Canadians are lucky to see just 1 Can team make 3rd rnd. Whens the last time 2 Canadian teams played each other in the 3rd round? Its actually easier for 2 Can teams to play for the Stanley Cup which hasnt happened since 1989 Habs vs Flames. I'm not positive, but I'd bet 2 Can teams havent met in the 3rd rnd since the current method was introduced, but was common in the 80's. Gee I wonder why that ghey rule exists. You're kidding. Right? A conspiracy by Americans in the NHL to develop a playoff system by which Canadian teams are eliminated as early as possible?... Really? I have a way to keep Canadian teams in the playoffs... Win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 as long as the Habs' extra two games are against the bruins . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 You're kidding. Right? A conspiracy by Americans in the NHL to develop a playoff system by which Canadian teams are eliminated as early as possible?... Really? I have a way to keep Canadian teams in the playoffs... Win. Precisely. I guess you've failed to notice 7 American teams have been added since 1989 while Canada has suffered a net loss of -1 (Add Ottawa but take away Quebec and Winnipeg). When we had our last Canadian final, there were 7 out of 21 teams (albeit only 2 were in the East so there was still an insane amount of luck involved). Nowadays there are only 6 out of 30 teams. Also, we're only in the 3rd season since the lockout and parity has yet to fully reach the Canadian teams. With the exception of the Senators, Canada has not had a legit Stanley Cup contender in the past 10 years. Even today, you can't honestly tell me any team other then the Senators is a bona-fide Cup contender. The tides are certainly changing for sure but it's a gradual effect rather then something that happens over night. 3-4 years from I'll bet most Canadian teams are powerhouses. This year the most we can hope for is surprise runs from Calgary or Vancouver in the West to meet up with a surprise run from Montreal or Ottawa actually cashing in on their talent. Blame expansion, blame uneven playing fields. But don't come to me with a weak conspiracy theory. Booting Canadian teams early serves the NHL no purpose, people need to stop thinking Bettman has some secret hate for Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.