Has anyone checked out the schedule in March?

[eball]

15 games in 31 days (well, 30, since they don't play on 3/1). Back-to-back games every weekend, and on four occasions they will play three games in four nights.

 

In stark contrast, February looks to be a rather "easy" month (11 games), with only one back-to-back on the schedule -- yet they play Ottawa thrice.

 

Think depth is important?

 

PLEASE stay healthy, guys.

[Corp000085]

last march was horrid too. didnt' we play the leafs like 3 straight times??

[wjag]

11 games in February, but what a great schedule for teams:

 

Thu Feb 1, 2007 AWAY Bruins 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 3, 2007 AWAY Devils 7:30 PM ET

Tue Feb 6, 2007 AWAY Thrashers 7:00 PM ET

Wed Feb 7, 2007 HOME Senators 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 10, 2007 HOME Flames 7:00 PM ET

Thu Feb 15, 2007 HOME Oilers 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 17, 2007 HOME Bruins 7:00 PM ET

Tue Feb 20, 2007 HOME Flyers 7:00 PM ET

Thu Feb 22, 2007 HOME Senators 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 24, 2007 AWAY Senators 7:00 PM ET

Tue Feb 27, 2007 AWAY Maple Leafs 7:30 PM ET

[Buffalo Wings]

11 games in February, but what a great schedule for teams:

 

Thu Feb 1, 2007 AWAY Bruins 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 3, 2007 AWAY Devils 7:30 PM ET

Tue Feb 6, 2007 AWAY Thrashers 7:00 PM ET

Wed Feb 7, 2007 HOME Senators 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 10, 2007 HOME Flames 7:00 PM ET

Thu Feb 15, 2007 HOME Oilers 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 17, 2007 HOME Bruins 7:00 PM ET

Tue Feb 20, 2007 HOME Flyers 7:00 PM ET

Thu Feb 22, 2007 HOME Senators 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 24, 2007 AWAY Senators 7:00 PM ET

Tue Feb 27, 2007 AWAY Maple Leafs 7:30 PM ET

This is why I don't like the unbalanced schedule. The Senators three times in 2.5 weeks here and right now, it's the Bruins 4 times in about 3 weeks. Sure, the Bruins are kinda slumping, but I'm already tired of seeing them.

 

I'd rather see the NHL go back to each team playing every other at least once.

[Bmwolf21]

11 games in February, but what a great schedule for teams:

 

Thu Feb 1, 2007 AWAY Bruins 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 3, 2007 AWAY Devils 7:30 PM ET

Tue Feb 6, 2007 AWAY Thrashers 7:00 PM ET

Wed Feb 7, 2007 HOME Senators 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 10, 2007 HOME Flames 7:00 PM ET

Thu Feb 15, 2007 HOME Oilers 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 17, 2007 HOME Bruins 7:00 PM ET

Tue Feb 20, 2007 HOME Flyers 7:00 PM ET

Thu Feb 22, 2007 HOME Senators 7:00 PM ET

Sat Feb 24, 2007 AWAY Senators 7:00 PM ET

Tue Feb 27, 2007 AWAY Maple Leafs 7:30 PM ET

 

This is why I don't like the unbalanced schedule. The Senators three times in 2.5 weeks here and right now, it's the Bruins 4 times in about 3 weeks. Sure, the Bruins are kinda slumping, but I'm already tired of seeing them.

 

I'd rather see the NHL go back to each team playing every other at least once.

Couldn't agree more with andy. I am already sick of seeing the Bruins, and that's too much of the Sens for my taste. I'd love to see Columbus come in, the Wild, the Avs, maybe the Blues - pretty much anyone new.

[Eleven]

Well, maybe count me in the minority. I remember 8 games per season against division opponents, and I liked it when I was a kid, and I like it now. Of course, the difference is that Bettman has expanded the league, but still, I like the rivalries. I'm pretty happy to not pay money to see mediocre Campbell Conference teams here; as it is, I get crappy Wales Conference teams.

 

If they can figure out a way to do it where we see fewer games against out-of-division yet in-conference teams (fewer games against Tampa, Filly, Carolina, Jersey, etc.) and more against teams from the other side of the Mississippi, fine. If they take away division games against the hated Canadiens and Bruins, the local Leafs, and the newly (on my clock) hated Sens, NO.

 

Do I really need to see Roenick one more time?

[Bmwolf21]

See, I think that the out-of-division/in-conference games are fine (on average, 3-4 each) but I just can't stomach many more Bruins or Sens games. I would much rather see Edmonton, the Wings, the Avs, the Ducks, the Sharks, the Blue Jackets come in than watch the Bruins 8 times.

 

I just think there's a better way to do it than the way they are doing it now.

[Taro T]

Well, maybe count me in the minority. I remember 8 games per season against division opponents, and I liked it when I was a kid, and I like it now. Of course, the difference is that Bettman has expanded the league, but still, I like the rivalries. I'm pretty happy to not pay money to see mediocre Campbell Conference teams here; as it is, I get crappy Wales Conference teams.

 

If they can figure out a way to do it where we see fewer games against out-of-division yet in-conference teams (fewer games against Tampa, Filly, Carolina, Jersey, etc.) and more against teams from the other side of the Mississippi, fine. If they take away division games against the hated Canadiens and Bruins, the local Leafs, and the newly (on my clock) hated Sens, NO.

 

Do I really need to see Roenick one more time?

I'm with you 11. I like the 8 games in division and would also like to see WC teams more often.

 

It can actually be done quite easily if you don't mind having an NFL style rotation system. Each team would play 32 games within their division.

 

They would play 3 non-division conference games with 2 home games against the teams of 1 division and 5 home games against the other division. This would rotate annually.

 

For non-conference games, you'd play 2 of the 3 divisions at home, and 2 of the 3 divisions away. This would cycle through every 3 years. So Buffalo would host Anaheim's and Minnesota's division 1 year, Detroit's and Minnesota's divisions the next year, and Anaheim's and Detroit's the following year.

 

You still get to see Montreal and TO come to town 4 times / year and at most you will only miss seeing teams once every 3 years, instead of the current system where you miss them 2 out of 3.

 

That, or having divisional opponents play 8 games and having teams play everyone else 2 times, are the only ways to have teams play all the teams within a particular division a consistent amount of home / road games (without going to something really funky like playing 3 games vs 1 in conference division, 1 game vs 1 out of conference division, and 2 games against the teams in the other 3 divisions) and without changing the 6 division format.

 

I would also increase league travel slightly more by adding constraints limiting how often / soon teams have rematches. The regular season lasts 6 months. There is no reason to have 2 teams play each other 3 times in 8 days (like Vancouver played Colorado last year) or have them play 4 times in just over 3 weeks (like Vancouver played Minny last year).

[Buffalo Wings]

See, I think that the out-of-division/in-conference games are fine (on average, 3-4 each) but I just can't stomach many more Bruins or Sens games. I would much rather see Edmonton, the Wings, the Avs, the Ducks, the Sharks, the Blue Jackets come in than watch the Bruins 8 times.

 

I just think there's a better way to do it than the way they are doing it now.

Also add to it that some teams have several days off in between games. It's not as bad this year, but in recent years, the schedule was such that the Sabres would be home against someone on Saturday night, then wouldn't play again until the following Thursday or Friday. And we wonder why some people complained that the NHL season is too long. :wallbash:

 

I understand the arguments for the unbalanced schedule....since the playoffs place you against teams in your own conference, then play those teams the most to decide the "true" standings. But if the NHL wants to market itself, then wouldn't a highly-anticipated regular season game between the Sabres and Ducks (two teams picked by many to reach the finals this year) be worth watching for everyone? Imagine if they played each other twice during the season??? What a concept....

 

The NHL changed a lot of rules so the game would be more fan-friendly. I don't think it would be too much to ask to have the schedule be a little more balanced.