# Games played upto 1974 - Question

Would anyone know why up until 1974 the Western division played 2 more regular season games than the Eastern division?

For example in 1972 the Western teams played 16 games and the Eastern teams played 14 games????

I know, I know.

We played the Western teams (5), once each...that's 5.

We played the 3 other Eastern teams 3 times each. (3x3=9).

9+5 (carry the one)...is 14!

It would be a decent advantage, 2 less games of wear and tear on the body and more time between games to heal.

The West had five teams, the East had four. It worked out mathematically for the East to play 14 games (three each against three Eastern foes, one each against five Western foes) and for the West to play 16 games (three each against four Western foes, one each against four Eastern foes).

I believe they went to 16 in each division when the league switched to a fully interlocking schedule, i.e. home and away games against each team in the other division and your own division. That meant two games each against the either other opponents, which meant that teams in the East actually played more games outside their division (10) than inside their division (six).

The fully interlocking schedule wasn't implemented until 1981. Both conferences went to an equal 16 game schedule in 1974.

Years ago is was traditional and important, in the minds of most, that there be equality in the schedule. It started in the Big Four early days of the Tiger-Cats, when it was 12 games - - 2 @ home and 2 away against each of the other 3 teams. As already pointed out, changes came with the partial interlocking and then full interlocking schedules and yet equality was there still important as late as 1985's 16 game schedule -- home and away against each of the other 8 teams. Equality was first set aside in '86 probably due to influence from the players' union and/or TV. Then came the years without Montreal, the US expansion, the return of the Als and the years without Ottawa, all making equality impossible in the 18-game format. If equality was still a concern, which I for one wish it were, I guess we'd have a 17 game schedule now -- home & away with each of the other division teams and 3 games with each of the three same division team.

Inequality would appear to be in Hamilton's favour this year, with the extra game against the so-far worst team (Toronto) while Winnipeg's is against the best (Montreal.)

I think that was the year that Tony Gabriel was traded to Ottawa. He protested that the Ticats had to pay him more money since he had to play 2 more games! It was quite a contract dispute in them days and he demanded to be traded. Players weren't supposed to speak out in them days.

The reason that it was allowed to happen was because it was a 'hangover' from before the CFL existed. After the joining of the two leagues a partial interlocking schedule didn't begin until - I believe - '61.

To make matters even worse, the Western League, up until 1964 played a longer playoff schedule as well. The semi-finals were a two game total point, and the finals were best of three.

For example in 64 the Stamps played on Nov 7, 9, (total point series) and 14, 18, 22 in the finals, losing to BC. So if the Stamps had won out they would have gone to the Cup having played five games in 15 days. Now that is tough.

The East of course was a one game semi and the two game total points finals. I don't know about you but I really miss those total point series. Some of the best football ever played in the history of the league.

Let me say you were THE BEST original TC!!!