Handicapping next year's interconference schedule

by Scrabbleship on Mar 17, 2010 12:42 PM EDT

With this season about over, I've started to wonder about next season's schedule and who/where the Caps will play next season from the Western Conference. With some idle time, I got some sort of idea of what might happen if the NHL sticks to some sort of rotation (i.e. everyone plays somewhere every other year):

Looking at the Caps schedule, the following matchups did not happen in the 2009-10 season.

Home: CHI, STL, COL, VAN, EDM, LAK
Road: NSH, MIN, CGY, DAL, PHX, ANA

The logical matchups for this year's three wildcard (home-and-home) teams -- CBJ, DET, and SJS -- would be to have CBJ and SJS visit DC and for the Caps to visit DET. However, as we all know, the NHL never truly operates on logic. Is the concept that everyone visits everyone at least once every other year codified, or just theoretical? Is there any rhyme or reason into picking wildcards? Just putting it out there.

If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's editors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

First of all..

The interconference wildcard system was set up to appease the Canadian teams more than anything. The three home-and-home interconference games for each of the Canadian teams is a match up against the Canadian teams in the other conference. That is something that the teams and CBC wanted.

There are a couple of other issues that seem to enter in how the teams are picked, in that if both teams in the Finals are in the USA, they will automatically get a home-and-home (such as PIT/DET the past two years). The Caps have actually had a home-and-home with CBJ each of the past two seasons (no idea why, just how it is).

This issue would really become moot if the NHL would just schedule 30 non-conference games, so every team goes to every building. If the league and players were willing to go to 84 games it would be pretty easy to set up the schedule:

24 divisional games (6 games as it is today)
30 conference games (drop one from today, alternate which division plays twice at one division each year)
30 non-conference games

Total is 84 games. Sure there’s more games to play, but there would be more revenue, and since the salary cap is based on a percentage of revenue, it means more $$ for the players.

Let's go Caps!

by MikeL-Pivonka on Mar 17, 2010 1:09 PM EDT reply actions

…and a Stanley Cup awarded sometime in July, exactly what we need.

by katzistan on Mar 17, 2010 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Adding two more regular season games results in the Stanley Cup being awarded a month later?

by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 17, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions

How then did we manage in the Neutral Site Game era of 1992-94 when 84 games were played and the Stanley Cup was awarded slightly earlier than today? This math makes no sense.

Then again, the NHLPA did get it scrubbed in the settlement that ended the 1994-95 lockout, though when you have such gems as Nordiques/Habs in Phoenix and Rangers/Devils in Halifax you aren’t going to get much traction for it.

by Scrabbleship on Mar 17, 2010 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions

IIRC the NHLPA offered exactly this in exchange for two fewer preseason games. Bettman said no.

"Ah, dinner. The perfect break between work and drunk." - Homer Simpson

by apk3000 on Mar 17, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Booooooooooooooooo!

Game-Over Green? Canada-Over Carlson!

by Scott in Shaw on Mar 17, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

That’s true. The players want more fewer preseason games, because they play for free and there’s nothing at stake unless their 3rd, 4th or 5th liners. The owners love preseason games because it’s basically pure profit. The players get 0, and the team gets the ticket revenue.

Let's go Caps!

by MikeL-Pivonka on Mar 17, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Things like this aren’t Bettman’s sole decision. The owners have a say as well.

Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst

by Killer_Carlson on Mar 18, 2010 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions

Bettman would do what the owners say. Preseason games are more profitable than regular season. Playoff games are the most profitable of all, of course.

Let's go Caps!

by MikeL-Pivonka on Mar 18, 2010 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions

But that would make too much sense!

Game-Over Green? Canada-Over Carlson!

by Scott in Shaw on Mar 17, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Just to play devil’s adovcate for a second, adding more non-conference games would increase travel expenses for quite a few teams (possibly all of them? I’m not about to do all that math), and at the very least increase the number of miles teams would have to travel. I’m also not really a big fan of reducing the conference games either, as I really look forward to a lot of these games (Pens, Flyers, for example). I also enjoy the “uniqueness” of playing the west teams, for what it’s worth.

The current system is at least better than when not every team got to play each other, and the divisional schedule carried way too much weight (8 games/team).

"I am ready for his provocations"

by PaintDrinkingPete on Mar 17, 2010 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I doubt there will be any change coming anytime soon. Likely not until after the next CBA and expansion cycle. And yes, once the next CBA is settled (probably next year before a lockout/strike, I think they’ll work it out), there will be an expansion announced. By 2014, the NHL will likely have 32 teams. It is also likely that by 2014 one existing team will relocate (Florida, Phoenix or Atlanta unfortunately. Unfortunate since these are all top 20 markets in the USA).

Let's go Caps!

by MikeL-Pivonka on Mar 18, 2010 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions

The interconference wildcard system was set up to appease the Canadian teams more than anything.

You mean to appease the most important customers in the league. As well as a welcome dollop of common sense.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.

by PPP on Mar 19, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions

A side note — the reason the Canadian teams are currently the most profitable is because the US and Canadian dollar are roughly equal. What happens when they’re not? Ask Winnipeg and Quebec City. (Disclaimer — I’m sure there were other reasons that contributed to financial problems, too, but I don’t know.)

So it may be Canada’s game, but it ain’t Canada’s league.

"The Caps fan doesn't say, 'is the glass half full' or 'is the glass half empty'. He wonders when the glass is going to spill."

by gfcaps fan on Mar 19, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Besides the fact that CBC got screwed out of a proper Hockey Day in Canada in 2008 as you mentioned, didn’t the Western Canada teams feel slighted by not being able to see Ovi until his second season and Sid until his third!? I remember reading that as being a secondary factor.

As for making a home-and-home for each team in the league, what would the Caps rather have: A second game vs. the Pens or Rangers which will get hoopla and attention, or a yearly chance to host, say, Phoenix or Edmonton which in less prosperous times wouldn’t be a sellout.

by Scrabbleship on Mar 19, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Southeast Standings

	GP	W	L	OTL	PT
Florida Litter Box Cats	55	27	17	11	65
Washington Japers' Rink	55	28	22	5	61
Winnipeg Arctic Ice Hockey	57	26	25	6	58
Tampa Bay Raw Charge	55	24	25	6	54
Carolina Canes Country	56	20	25	11	51