The SBP Archives - Your less than frequent dose of SBP!

There are a couple of things wrong with the current NHL schedule:

1) Too many games. There are 82 over the course of a regular season. It's hard for the players to get up for each and every game when you play four games in a week. The NFL has each team play only 16 games in their season. I don't watch football, but that format allows for every game to be exciting and meaningful. I don't think NHL teams should only play once a week, but the reducing the amount is the way to go.

2) Too many interdivisional games. Nothing gets my blood going like a Leafs-Senators tilt, but some of its luster is lost when you play the same team eight times. The NHL compounded the error with Ottawa and Toronto playing each other four times in the same month. I understand they want to increase the rivalries between teams, but I think five or six games could accomplish the same goal.

I would really like to see Ottawa face Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary every year, but the current scheduling allows them to face each other only 2 out of 3 seasons. We won't see these matchups for the 2007-08 season as it will be the third part of the "rotation" where they don't play each other.

The NHL Board of Governors discussed a proposed schedule change to fix problems like that and was a vote or two away from changing the current format. Guys like GM Brian Burke of the Anaheim Ducks was quick to say, "We can't automatically give the fans what they want." Excuse me? Joe Thornton said he likes the current schedule because he can "rest" better. These guys are hardly looking out for the fans interests, which every person associated with the league needs to make as their TOP priority.

The NFL, again, does it right. They're flexible to the point they'll make contests fans want to see. Imagine that! I have a feeling, regardless of the outcome of the Superbowl, a Colts-Bears matchup will be scheduled for next year. If Ottawa plays Calgary in the Cup final, no regular season matchup for next season is possible, because the fans want it and the GMs don't. Does that make ANY sense? Of course not. But they are so rigid with their rules, the only thing they are concerned about is how much money they can save by taking a bus instead of a plane.

Anyway, it's unrealistic to think the NHL will reduce the number of games since gate revenue is their #1 source of income (they are getting practically no TV money), but they can still address other areas to improve the game. But they choose not to.

Other NHL thoughts: I tried really, really hard to watch the Young Stars game but couldn't do it. It was so boring and meaningless, I had to change the channel. Even the skills competition didn't have much flow to it like I remember. I'm going to try to watch the regular All-Star game tonight, again, and will likely change the channel, again. Having said that, it was pretty embarrassing to see all those empty seats in the Dallas arena, home of the 1999 Stanley Cup Champions. NHL logic is moving teams from hockey hotbeds where people are passionate about the game, like Winnipeg & Quebec City, and literally bury them in the desert in places like Phoenix where no one goes to watch the games. (However, they still go out to see one top Canadian athlete play: Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns). The Nashville Predators have one of the best teams in the NHL and are a Cup contender, but only 12,000 fans turn out to watch. Sigh. I would definitely run things differently if I was in charge.

Just to show that I do recognize some of the things the league does right, they awarded the 2009 All-Star game to Montreal to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Canadiens. See? That DOES make sense! Is that so hard?