84 game schedule

**Devlin** · 12-16-2022, 05:44 PM

NHL considering this, more regional play

**cjb** · 12-16-2022, 08:25 PM

They should be decreasing the number of games, not increasing.

**odjickfan** · 12-17-2022, 01:34 AM

I'm not sure. The season is already pretty long. The idea of more regional play, good for rivalries, but I enjoy seeing my Habs playing against teams from the west like the Oilers.

**fatfrank** · 12-17-2022, 09:54 AM

Bad idea but maybe not as bad as the play in game for playoffs. How about make the schedule more consistent from a standpoint of days in between games. Get rid of back to back games unless they are the same two teams playing a Home and Home series or both teams played the night before. The Blues finally played their first game this year when some teams already had three in the books. It seemed like an eternity before they started the season.

**subban7677** · 12-19-2022, 12:33 AM

Players are paid for an 82-game schedule, nothing else. The NHL is salavating over the idea of a play-in round. It's all revenue, no salary to be paid.

**Goose97** · 12-19-2022, 02:42 AM

They did already have an 84 game schedule for the 92-93, 93-94 seasons. after the 94-95 season shortened strike it was settled upon the current 82 that has been the "slated" amount since. Take into consideration some were shortened for various reasons.

**RGM81** · 12-19-2022, 01:06 PM

I think the schedule is fine at 82 games.

**30ranfordfan** · 12-20-2022, 01:12 PM

I don't have a big desire to see the schedule increased, but for me - the current notion that every team hosts every other team each season is what needs to change. Everyone plays everyone at least once is fine - but I'd prefer to see more divisional games, and less cross conference.

My ideal schedule with the current league would be this:

Host one opposite conference division, and visit the other one (i.e. Pacific will host Atlantic, and visit the Metro. The following season, switch it). That's 16 games.

The other division / same conference: You get a home & away game vs all 8 teams. You get an extra home game vs 4 of the teams, and an extra road game vs the other 4. (i.e. Edmonton hosts Dallas, Winnipeg, Minnesota, Colorado an extra time, and visits St Louis, Nashville, Arizona, Chicago an extra time). Swap the extra games each year. That's 24 games.

Play the other 7 teams in your division 3 times each at home, and 3 times each away. That's 42 games.

If the playoffs are going to be divisional (which I am 100% in favour of) - it only makes sense to have an emphasis divisional games in the regular season.

Having said all of that.... and keeping with the same theme.... I do see a reason to switch to an 84 game schedule: Potential expansion (which is also being talked about). The league is at an even 8 teams, in 4 divisions. I assume *IF* they were to expand, it would be four more teams. For the sake of argument, let's say they did that. Teams get added to Houston, Kansas City, Quebec, and Atlanta (not looking to look at the merits of any expansion cities... just need easy examples). Arizona moves to the Pacific, Houston & KC join the central, Atlanta goes to the Metro, and Quebec can join the Atlantic.

Now you've got 4 divisions of 9. The schedule is simpler if you go to 84 games:

1 game each vs the other conference (same idea: Host one division, visit the other). 18 games total.
2 games each (home & away) vs same conference. 18 games total.
6 games each vs same division. 48 games total.

That's 84 games.

Someone else mentioned the idea of play-in games. I suspect that's coming too, regardless of a schedule change (or expansion) but especially if there's expansion. End the wild card, make it a straight division... but top 5 make it. 4 plays 5 in a "play in" (one game? two game aggregate? best of 3?). If you wanted to get real crazy, you could have the top 6 make it: 3 hosts 6 (no travel), 4 hosts 5 (no travel) in best of three play ins... and reduce the first round to a best of five. (I don't actually like that idea, but it sounds like something the NHL would toss around).

Don't forget, if a play-in round (even if it's one game) is added - it's not just the revenue that's generated from those extra 4 games. It's the added revenue of more interest in late season games, for more teams. Look at last year's Eastern standings. The playoff picture was pretty much locked for more than a month before the end of the regular season. Teams were fighting for position, but you knew who was going to make it.

If you drop the wild card, and add a play-in round (5th place team in each division will play the 4th place team): Buffalo & the Islanders would have earned those 5th place spots, and played against Boston & Washington. Columbus was just 3 points back of the Isles, Detroit & Ottawa were 1 & 2 points back of Buffalo. All but three Eastern teams would have been in the race, up until the last few days of the season. It makes those games worth paying attention to "so you're saying we still have a chance?"

I went off on a few tangents there, so I'll go back to the main point of this thread: I suspect that an 84 game schedule is being talked about, because however they're planning to set things up schedule wise in the future - 84 works better with their expansion plans than 82 does.