84-game schedule part of NHL CBA talks

[Lone_Ranger]

That's stupid.

[moose-and-squirrel]

The last time they did that, they reverted after 2 years of it. It was 84 games in the 90s the two years when Montreal and the Rangers won Cups

And the two extra games were neutral site games. I saw the Blues play Hartford in Peoria one year.

I do wish they would do neutral site games again.

Because I don't remember 93-94 in that much detail, did EVERY team have a neutral site game? Because they do still have them, they're the International Series games. My coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but didn't we play one in like Sweden or something?

Each team played neutral site games. It was a way for the NHL to hold games in locations that they were eying for potential late 90s early 2000s expansion. You might see teams playing in Denver, Houston. Peoria, Atlanta and Kansas City for example. Some of the locations would end up with expansion or relocation while others are still waiting.

if they expand, or a team relocates, Houston should be at the top of the list

I would imagine Houston will be a front runner. The one that seems to have lost steam is Kansas City. 90’s and 00’s they were always listed as a real chance to get a team. Now they seem to be bumped to the long shot list.

my understanding is KC makes more money by hosting other events that having to accommodate a hockey team

[Wattage]

Moving to an 84-game regular season from 82 is one of the topics that has been discussed in collective bargaining talks between the NHL and the NHL Players’ Association, according to a person familiar with negotiations.

Link

I would be curious how that impacts how many times you play in division.

Right now ypu play 5 of the 7 other teams in your division 4 times and the other 2 teams 3 times. Id assume theyd just make you now play each team in division 4 times.

This will all get messed up again when they expand.

[Wattage]

I'm going to assume they are looking for the 2 additional games because they'd like to expand. Personally I think expansion is a mistake and will just water down the product, but owners like those big bucks rolling in from new franchises.

Well theres also an oddity that teams play 5 oftheir division "rivals" 4.games but play the other 2 division rivals only 3 times which is the same they.play teams in the other conference. This would allow them to just equalize it to play all teams in your division 4 times until expansion messes up schedule again

[TheJackBurton]

I'm going to assume they are looking for the 2 additional games because they'd like to expand. Personally I think expansion is a mistake and will just water down the product, but owners like those big bucks rolling in from new franchises.

Well theres also an oddity that teams play 5 oftheir division "rivals" 4.games but play the other 2 division rivals only 3 times which is the same they.play teams in the other conference. This would allow them to just equalize it to play all teams in your division 4 times until expansion messes up schedule again

I'd much prefer it the other way. Reduce out of division games and increase in division games.

which is going to affect each division race more:

Playing 7 games in the Pacific, or playing 7 games in division?

[Wattage]

I'm going to assume they are looking for the 2 additional games because they'd like to expand. Personally I think expansion is a mistake and will just water down the product, but owners like those big bucks rolling in from new franchises.

Well theres also an oddity that teams play 5 oftheir division "rivals" 4.games but play the other 2 division rivals only 3 times which is the same they.play teams in the other conference. This would allow them to just equalize it to play all teams in your division 4 times until expansion messes up schedule again

I'd much prefer it the other way. Reduce out of division games and increase in division games.

which is going to affect each division race more:

Playing 7 games in the Pacific, or playing 7 games in division?

I dont disagree. I think the super balanced schedule is a bit dumb and kinda kills the importance and point of divisions, but its what the nhl has wanted to gravitate to

[TheJackBurton]

I'm going to assume they are looking for the 2 additional games because they'd like to expand. Personally I think expansion is a mistake and will just water down the product, but owners like those big bucks rolling in from new franchises.

Well theres also an oddity that teams play 5 oftheir division "rivals" 4.games but play the other 2 division rivals only 3 times which is the same they.play teams in the other conference. This would allow them to just equalize it to play all teams in your division 4 times until expansion messes up schedule again

I'd much prefer it the other way. Reduce out of division games and increase in division games.

which is going to affect each division race more:

Playing 7 games in the Pacific, or playing 7 games in division?

I dont disagree. I think the super balanced schedule is a bit dumb and kinda kills the importance and point of divisions, but its what the nhl has wanted to gravitate to

Which makes even less sense when you do the playoffs like they do.

If they want a balanced schedule just eliminate the divisions and have just the conferences.

If you want divisions and divisional playoffs then the regular season games should lean heavily into divisional games.

The NHL can be the best league in the world, but it never misses an opportunity to shoot itself in the foot.

Also, I despise the late night games, so the less of those the better off I am.

[Stlcardsblues]

I'm going to assume they are looking for the 2 additional games because they'd like to expand. Personally I think expansion is a mistake and will just water down the product, but owners like those big bucks rolling in from new franchises.

Well theres also an oddity that teams play 5 oftheir division "rivals" 4.games but play the other 2 division rivals only 3 times which is the same they.play teams in the other conference. This would allow them to just equalize it to play all teams in your division 4 times until expansion messes up schedule again

I'd much prefer it the other way. Reduce out of division games and increase in division games.

which is going to affect each division race more:

Playing 7 games in the Pacific, or playing 7 games in division?

I dont disagree. I think the super balanced schedule is a bit dumb and kinda kills the importance and point of divisions, but its what the nhl has wanted to gravitate to

How would you change it?

[Wattage]

I'm going to assume they are looking for the 2 additional games because they'd like to expand. Personally I think expansion is a mistake and will just water down the product, but owners like those big bucks rolling in from new franchises.

Well theres also an oddity that teams play 5 oftheir division "rivals" 4.games but play the other 2 division rivals only 3 times which is the same they.play teams in the other conference. This would allow them to just equalize it to play all teams in your division 4 times until expansion messes up schedule again

I'd much prefer it the other way. Reduce out of division games and increase in division games.

which is going to affect each division race more:

Playing 7 games in the Pacific, or playing 7 games in division?

I dont disagree. I think the super balanced schedule is a bit dumb and kinda kills the importance and point of divisions, but its what the nhl has wanted to gravitate to

How would you change it?

Keep every team in other division in conference at 3 games.
But face teams in the other conference once per year instead of twice. Alternate home away with each one every year. That adds room for 16 more division games which would allow you to face every team in your division 6 times with 82 game schedule.

Thats mostly closer to how it used to be.