How to fix the nhl

[See Red]

This topic has been brought up on this topic in the past -- And I looked and didn't see anyone else post about it being on espn.com. So I though I'd share it. I'm sure alot of people have seen it cuz' it's the front 'page' of their site.

I agree with most of these, and alot of them, I haven't ever seen brought up on the board.

10. Call the rule book

This is simple. Forget "crackdowns," just call the game the way it says to in the rule book. Call diving, call obstruction and interference, call holding the stick. And it's important that the league support its officials throughout the season. When the league doesn't take the heat for an official, especially when that official is executing a league mandate, the entire group is more likely to become whistle-shy.

9. Bring back the "tag-up" rule

Delayed offside, or the "tag-up" rule, kept the play alive by allowing offensive players who were already in the attacking zone when the puck entered to leave and re-enter the zone onside, provided they didn't touch the puck. The rule was repealed in 1986-87 because of the "ping pong" effect -- forwards would dump the puck in and defensemen would dump the puck out without generating offense. But it also facilitated offensive rushes and aggressive forechecks, something the league has failed to accomplish via obstruction crackdowns.

8. No limit on curvature of sticks

Brett Hull with a curved stick? Goalies will be sleeping with the lights on.

Back in 1967-68, the limit of curvature on a hockey stick was set at 1 1/2 inches. In 1969-70, it was reduced to 1 inch. In 1970-71, it was reduced to 1/2 inch. These rules were put in place because huge slap shots with dramatically curved blades were fast, unpredictable and dangerous -- to fans, because high glass wasn't standard in all arenas, and to goalies who still were playing without masks. Now that goalies are well-protected and all arenas have high glass and safety netting, curved blades should be allowed back in the league. It will give more players the chance to compete for the scoring title.

7. Stop protecting the goalie

... except when he's in his crease. As it stands, a goalie is off limits when he's out of his crease. Yet many goalies abuse the protection by slowing down the play, thwarting the opposition's forecheck and trying to draw penalties. Making the goalie fair game would deter many from leaving the safety of their crease and allow play to continue. And when teams dump the puck in the zone, they actually have the opportunity to chase it. Good stickhandling goalies such as Martin Brodeur and Marty Turco, who move the puck up the ice like a third defenseman, would be limited to passing on line changes, but the continuous play would more than compensate.

6. Serve the full two minutes

Players used to serve the full two minutes of a minor penalty -- until 1956-57, when the rule was amended and the player was allowed to return to the ice if the opposition scored. Because penalty killing has never been better, now is a perfect time to turn the clock back. Average power-play units seldom score in the first minute of a power play anyway, so letting them continue with the man advantage isn't like opening the floodgates. However, teams likely will work to perfect their power plays in hope of taking advantage of the situation. In turn, teams will be more cautious about committing penalties, especially against teams that are superior with the man advantage. The result: an increase in offense and cleaner games.

5. Move the goal line back

The goal line was moved in one foot from the boards in 1990-91 and another two feet in 1998-99. As a result, the neutral zone shrank from 60 feet to 54 feet, reducing the amount of real estate offensive players had to operate and defensive players had to cover. Today's bigger players need more room to work behind the net, but a full three feet? Instead of widening the lines to create bigger zones, why not move the lines back two feet to where they were in 1990-91 and see what happens? If it doesn't work, we'll put them back and make the net bigger.

4. Amend the instigator rule

The league wants to control the level of violence in the game, but its concerns about public perception are having an adverse affect. The rule, which gives a player a minor penalty for starting a fight then suspends him for each subsequent instigator penalty, is too hard on players who play the role of policemen. As a result, skilled players are continually clutched, grabbed and hacked at partly because officials can't catch every offense and partly because the offenders don't fear physical retribution from opponents. Back in 1991-92, the year before the instigator rule was introduced, there were 6.96 goals and 1.75 fighting majors per game -- and the San Jose Sharks entered the league. Last year, there were only 5.24 goals scored per game and 1.29 fighting majors. Are they related? Who knows. Drop the instigator rule and see what happens.

3. A better schedule

The number of games in an NHL team's season has risen from 74 during the league's first expansion in 1967-68 to an all-time high of 84 in 1992-93. It currently stands at 82. It has been pointed out that many of the lackluster games in the NHL are a product of teams playing six games in nine days in six cities. Two of the more popular solutions are shortening the schedule or eliminating intraconference play. Both suggestions would cut down on the amount of travel, allowing players to rest and practice more between games, and cultivate more rivalries. And a shorter schedule would prevent the Stanley Cup final from reaching into June. But as with many of the other suggestions, there are financial and cultural implications: Reducing the schedule would cost owners money, and separating the conferences would split the Canadian teams, which rely heavily on each other for fan interest and attendance revenue.

2. Fix the standings

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to how. Suggestions run the gamut from simply eliminating the point for an overtime loss to eliminating the overtime loss and offering three points for a win in regulation, thus undermining plans to go for a tie. Then there is eliminating overtime losses and ties by going to a shootout (see below). Bottom line: The NHL is the only league with standings that aren't determined by winning percentage, and with the general public's aversion toward math -- and anything different, like the OTL column -- the less multiplication and addition the better. The intent of awarding three points is well-founded, but the application is unwieldy. Which leads us to ...

1. Shootouts

With the NHL on pace to break the record for ties in a season, there is agreement that something should be done to discourage ties, if not eliminate them altogether. However, hockey purists and even most players have a difficult time wrapping their brains around this one. After all, what's the point of an entire team playing 65 minutes of hockey (we'll keep overtime) when the game is going to be decided by a handful of skill players and the goalie? Well, if teams don't want a game decided by a shootout, they can win it in regulation or overtime. If not, give the fans what they want to see. Only during the regular season, though.

[DEAD!]

I read ESPN.com Page2's take on it! It's much more fun!

[jkrdevil]

The game is fine on the ice. Tag-up offsides would be nice, so would less games, and yes fix the stadings where you don't get a point for losing.

The problem is management, Bettman is the worse commissioner. He wants hockey to be like the NBA with high-scoring, but that's not hockey hockey is a physical defensive game always has and always will be. Don't try to change that. To me a 1-0 game is more exciting than a 6-5 game. With a low-scoring game every goal is important, with a high-scoring game the game is less exciting because you know another goal will be scored. Defense is exciting.

Shoot-out would be terrible!! Decide who wins the game by playing the game!!

[Stampman]

NO SHOOTOUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate shootouts--they're so artificial--hockey is a team game--to leave the outcome up to shootouts would be a step backwards--they might seem exciting at first--but the novelty would wear off-quickly.

Penalty shots and breakaways are exciting for two main reasons--they don't happen all the time, and they occur as a result of the PLAY.

If the NHL went to shootouts I believe they would alienate a lot of fans, and it would be the final straw for many--myself included.  I love hockey--but the NHL organization is ruining it enough without shootouts.

That said, however, most of the other reasons aren't too bad--most I'd agree with--

BUT--

NO SHOOTOUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stampman]

The game is fine on the ice. Tag-up offsides would be nice, so would less games, and yes fix the stadings where you don't get a point for losing.

The problem is management, Bettman is the worse commissioner. He wants hockey to be like the NBA with high-scoring, but that's not hockey hockey is a physical defensive game always has and always will be. Don't try to change that. To me a 1-0 game is more exciting than a 6-5 game. With a low-scoring game every goal is important, with a high-scoring game the game is less exciting because you know another goal will be scored. Defense is exciting.

Should the NBA settle ties with free thorw contests, NFL with FG kicking duels, MLB with home run derbies?

No--neither should the NHL go to shootouts--

Shoot-out would be terrible!! Decide who wins the game by playing the game!!

I was writing my post while you were--and I have to agree.  1-0 games can be exciting--it's not the number of goals--it's the play--when everyone and his dog was a 40 goal scorer, and 60 was more common than 50 now--it wasn't as exciting--because it lacked drama.

Now if it's 1-0 because of the trap?  Boring--but 1-0 because of great goaltending and defensive plays--yes it is exciting.

"However, hockey purists and even most players have a difficult time wrapping their brains around this one."

Well that's because it ain't hockey--it ain't team play.

[JQK]

Eliminate Ties - If tied at the end of a 5-minute overtime, go to a shootout. Winners get two points, losers get zero

Touch-Up Offsides reinstituted

Instigator Rule Recinded

Goals Moved back 2 1/2 feet

Restriction on Goalie Equiptment

No Protection for Goalies outside of Crease

Reduce games from 82 to 65

Eliminate eight franchises

Reduce Playoff teams from 16 to 8

Do not let FOX provide hockey coverage

[habsfannova]

Instead of shootouts, do something we all did in hockey drills as kids:  Three forwards against two defensemen and the goalie from the other team.  The attacking team has 20 seconds to score.  Trade off like a shootout.

MUCH better then the stupid, non-team shootouts.

[specialk]

The talent pool these days is so watered down, i agree with JQK about the need to take away at least 8 franchises. Since when does hockey get played in Dallas, Phoenix, San Jose, Tampa Bay, Florida and Anaheim? My hockey team traveled to the States and destroyed a team playing from Dallas. They don't know hockey down there, it's not a hockey area. Taking out the 2 line passing rule would be nice, and widening the rink would be great as well, and tag up offsides. I just think that they should lengthen the overtime period, maybe to 10 minutes. If not that, then they should go 5 on 5 for 5 minutes, and if that doesn't work, 4 on 4 for 3 minutes, and then 3 on 3 for 1 to 2 minutes. I think it would be more exciting then. I disagree with taking away the reductions on the curves. That can be extremely dangerous, hooking and high-sticking would be taken to a completely different level and there would never be any more tip goals which i find very exciting because all the shots would end up high. Hockey is a game of heritage, and i doubt that there will be any drastic change in the future.

[bods39]

while I think the shootout is an exciting "event" it has no place in deciding a game. Leave it for all-star skills competitions.

A point that Jeremy Roenick mentioned was make to the nets

bigger. He felt that one more inch wider or higher could make

a difference. Geesh...I think he was talking about the net?

And while most of the rules should be reinstated, like the goal line being moved back and a shorter season I don't think there's a whole lot wrong with the game. A 2-1 game is much more exciting (to me at least) than a 8-6 run and gun fest.

I'd rather see all around great play from everyone than just scoring for scorings sake.

I hate Bettman as much as the next guy, he's a businessman

pure and true, and I bet if you were to have a chance to "talk hockey" with him he wouldn't know squat. I've often wondered

why a canadian isn't the commissioner, why a NY businessman

with no history or love of the game.

One more point that sometimes get's passed over in my mind,

the goalies are much better now. And yes there equipemt is bigger and better. But they're better athletes and they've

reinterprated how to play the position. The butterfly and taking away the stuff down low is a high percentage move, that's also been a big factor in keeping scoring down.

[Roger Clemente]

If they install a system where there is no ties and the losers in overtime get no points, why bother with points at all?

Widening the rink is almost out of the question because you'd have to spend millions renovating each NHL arena to accomodate it all. And the NHL has enough problems making money as it is.

I think I'm in a minority when I say I like the rules the way it is and the play the way it is. I just wish more Americans would learn about and appreciate the game so they could support the teams and watch the games on TV and make the league money and keep it steady.

My main gripe with contraction is that everyone keeps picking Anaheim, and I don't want them to leave. Take away any other 6, but please leave them alone.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[STL FANATIC]

They need to go back to what they had a few years ago and for a long time with the points system. A win is ALWAYS 2 points. A loss is ALWAYS no points. If you tie, you each get one. I don't care if there are more ties. Teams can decided what they wanna do in OT. Risk going for 2, or make sure they get 1. In rivalries, I think the current point system sucks.

With the removal of the current point system OT rules, we'd also go back to 5-5 ALL the time.

The Instigator should be gone, because no matter if it is related to scoring or not, it's dumb, and more players are taken advantage of because they don't have to worry.

Goalies should be fair game out of the crease.

Way less teams should make the playoffs, though I'm still pondering how it would work.

Officials need to call the rule book (hopefully modified to these suggestions) as it is all the time. I'm sick of hearing how more things go in OT and in the POs. To hell with that. A penalty is a penalty. They need to be consistent. Just the other day I watched a Blues player get blatently boarded with his head down in OT. A few games ago I watched the opponent get a 5 minute match penalty and a game miscounduct for the same thing in regulation. Now that it's OT, the ref just stared and watched. Ridiculous.

There's probably more rules I'd liked changed, but that's all that are coming to me now.

[CC97]

Good ole ESPN pretending it knows something about hockey...

Ain't it cute?

Most of these suggestions seem to be taken from the 2004 Toronto Sun NHL Players Poll, which coincidentally appeared in today's edition of the Toronto Sun.

Although "shootouts" were only suggested by one player, IIRC "Tag-up offsides" was the favourite change by players.

[Stampman]

I was almost impressed until the shootout suggestion--

I wondered where they got the good suggestions from--now I know.

but I repeat NO SHOOTOUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DEAD!]

Here's what I was referring to

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1728723

[NJTank]

Heres something i suggested once before.

Give teams the option 1 per game of choosing to use a Penalty Shot instead of a Power Play.

Regaul PS calls will remain, but this would be helpful for a team down 1 goal in the final few minutes.

Of course if teh shot goes arye no power play, and you cna only do it once so teams will have to be stragetic and choose the right moment, and they dont even have to use it. It will be like NFL replay challenges picking the right moment will be key.

[JQK]

The points sytem is fu*ked up. There is no doubt about it. the OTL colom is pointless (no pun intended), this whole 1-point for making it to OT is crap. If teams tie, give them no points, you'll be seeing teams trying to win then....

I think the points sytem has to be looked at, and if not completely thrown out, severly overhauled.

[NJTank]

I think OTL has to be thrown out you lose in OT, too bad play better next time.

[zer0dotcom]

OTL is a joke. you don't award losers.

The problem is people are making up all of these patch-work solutions to a problem and aren't giving these changes enough time to work. Revert the rules back to the way things were in 1990.

I also agree that there are way too many teams out there. It's time to remove teams that aren't getting support. Instead of folding, why not merge? have two troubled teams combine to survive. I don't mean to offend fans of teams in the Southern US, but the NHL shouldn't have expanded into Florida and California any further. All the big four are expanded right to their limits (hopefully) 30 teams are alot of teams. The league will benefit from having fewer around.

[Notch Novelty]

Since when does hockey get played in Dallas, Phoenix, San Jose, Tampa Bay, Florida and Anaheim? My hockey team traveled to the States and destroyed a team playing from Dallas. They don't know hockey down there, it's not a hockey area.

I don't know what level you play at but in AAA, Cal Wave won Bantam AAA Nationals 88 Division, the LA Jr Kings have been a force in Bantams and Midget last 5 years, LA Stars Midget Major team is ranked 4th in the Nation, Dallas Jr Stars have had a great Midget program over last few years.

IMG Academy was hockey powerhouse based in FLA, numerous Cali,TX, and FLA players are currently playing in USHL, D1, D3, NAHL, and NHL. Let's not forget Roller Hockey! I think player from Cali Wave 88's got taken in the first round of OHL draft and WHL is always recruting CALI kids.....

So that's horrible statement to make! Face it hockey is all over but I would like to see hockey in the North only.

Pt system needs to be changed, PP to run full 2 mins, old offside rule, and instigator rule back like it was. Would make NHL better.

[IronChefShark]

to say hockey only belongs somewhere where it snows is not only stupid, but downright selfish. How would you like it if someone told you that you couldnt be a fan of or play a sport youve grown to love just because youre "not from the right place"? Not gonna fly now is it?

what if someone came and said baseball should only be played in the south? would that make much sense?

if people truly love hockey then they would want to see interest in it EXPAND rather then decline. now this is not a suggestion that the NHL needs more teams because it sure as hell doesnt. Honestly, I would like to see ice hockey on the international scene expand to warmer climate nations, as crazy as it sounds. Nations like Mexico, Brazil, Phillipines, Argentina, India, to name just a few.

People fail to realize it takes time to establish a core fanbase. Just because of these "non traditional" markets are struggling in attendance now doesnt mean the sport of hockey itself is a failure in those cities. Give them time, and as the teams get more competitive and interest grows, facilities will be built and more people will be playing hockey in these cities and will even someday end up in the NHL.

want to know where hockey is really developing at a fast pace? Northern California. not necessarily the bay area but Im talking the Tahoe-Truckee area, by where Squaw Valley is. I was at a Sharks game this year and a youth team called the High Sierra Wild was also there. I asked a couple of the kids what city theyre out of and they told me Lake Tahoe, and yes indeed, they do play pickup games OUTDOORS there. It does snow there after all. But that area is by no means big enough in population to support an NHL team. So the adopted NHL team in that area is the San Jose Sharks. Take the Sharks away and what do these kids in what most of you would judge "a legitimate hockey area just because it snows" have?

if you guys want the nhl to improve, then I suggest the regionalistic attitudes when it comes to where "hockey should be played" need to improve

off the soapbox