ESPN Fixes Hockey (ha!)

[Pyser]

they banned fighting, widened the goal by a FOOT, limited teams to 9 forwards, shortened the schedule, and put 16 of the 20 teams (yes, only 20) into the playoffs.

then they mention, on about 5 different occasions, that players can take off their helmets during shootouts. oh yeah, there are shootouts.

sounds great, jerkasses. some of the ideas are good, but overall....come on.

its the lead story on espn.com right now. cant link it, sorry.

[rkmsuf]

Earth to ESPN...it's not the rules of the game that are the problem. Make up any rules you want on ice and it's not going to matter a lick.

It's a regional sport and poor for tv, asswads.

[MikeVic]

Didn't see Winnipeg as a team, so I stopped reading.

[Pyser]

they got rid of ottawa, too. but hartford and vegas got teams.

[Ragone]

they need to fix their html coding.. none of the pictures are coming up :P

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ah yes, just what I always wanted ... "hockey" with a 9-8 final in a shootout.

[Fidatelo]

I'm all for the return of the Whale, but what does Hartford provide hockey-wise that Winnipeg doesn't? Oh ya... the ESPN offices. What a waste of my reading time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh joy, I see the post-order bug is back.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bbor

Slow sports day?

Looked more like promotion for a video game title.

[bbor]

Slow sports day?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

The NHL re allignment doesnt really fix any thing. Surprised there were like 2 teams in Canada and Vegas got a team and non in hockey Hotbed of North Dakota or even the Northwest.

[korme]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I'm all for the return of the Whale, but what does Hartford provide hockey-wise that Winnipeg doesn't? Oh ya... the ESPN offices. What a waste of my reading time.

Breakfast, shmreakfast. Look at the score, for Christ's sake. It's only the second period and I'm up 12 to 2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, "the Whale," they only beat Vancouver once, maybe twice in a lifetime.

[Maple Leafs]

Wow.

Not only is the proposal bad, but it's so bad that I doubt it's even done in good faith. I think it's a slow sports news day, and ESPN is looking to drum up a little maunfactured controversy.

Those wacky Canadians can be relied on to write a few hundred angry e-mails, right?

[ISiddiqui]

Jesus... a shootout to determine ties? What bull. I think Maple Leafs may be right... slow news day, want to drum up controversy. After all, why post this now?

[henry296]

I think this planned to be released now for a couple of reasons

1. Based on past history (1994-5) this was about when the last strikes was resolved.
2. The planned (now cancellend) owners meeting which they felt was going mean a cancelled season

As for the shootouts, many surveys show great support for them. I agree a couple of the ideas are very outlandish, but sometimes radical change is needed.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ah yes, just what I always wanted ... "hockey" with a 9-8 final in a shootout.

But, they do address a problem that the NHL has - hockey in its current form does not have enough fans to be financially viable - especially if current contracts are honored. They need to realize what the NFL discovered - if they change the rules in favor of the offense, purists will bitch, but still watch, and they will attract tons of new fans. 9-8 finals would sell the game far better than the games they have put on in the last 4-5 years.

[bbor]

Why not an article about ties in baseball after 9 innings being resolved with a home run contest?

[aran]

This proposal sounds like the XFL, but without the hot chicks and "Xtreme"ity.

i would definitely watch it if it was on TV, though. I'm always up for new things.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Samdari

They need to realize what the NFL discovered - if they change the rules in favor of the offense, purists will bitch, but still watch, and they will attract tons of new fans. 9-8 finals would sell the game far better than the games they have put on in the last 4-5 years.

Definately would not agree with that. 5-4 games would sell better, but not 9-8 games. If you skew the rules in favor of offense so that games that normally would end up being 2-1 are now 4-2 is fine, but going as far as to make 9-8 games the norm is not. Then you're just making it a sport that's determined by amount of shots and luck. The more the rules are skewed like that, the more you take skill out of the equation (and makes previous records and stats completely meaningless).

Yeah football made, and is still making, offense favored rules, but it's not artifically inflating scores. The scores are still pretty much the same in the NFL, with a little higher frequency of the high scoring blowout. That's what the NHL needs to do. Find away to make the game more exciting without the artificial inflation of the score (which is what widening the goals would do). A byproduct of a more exciting game will be some more scoring, but it won't feel artificial. Games that routinely end in 9-8 scores is a brand of hockey that I would not watch.

One of the biggest reasons why I think a lot of people don't get into hockey is because of the amount of ties. No one wants to sit through 3 1/2 hours of hockey just to see the game end in a 2-2 tie. They should do what the NFL does and play a whole extra period until someone scores instead of just the 5 minute OT. That way a lot more games will end with a winner and you won't need a shootout (OT hockey is the most exciting thing to watch, why would they want to take that away?)

16 out of 20 teams make the playoffs? I thought a major reason no one bothers with regular season hockey is because the perception is that it doesn't matter. Now they're really going to make it not matter at all except for the bottom feeder teams. That's insanely stupid. There should not be more than 1/2 of the league in the playoffs. If they reduce the teams to 20, I don't see why there should be more than 8 teams in the playoffs. If they kept it at 16, even fewer people will pay attention to the regular season, the money they make from TV will go down even more and so will attendance. So I don't see how they can justify it by saying "for more money". It'll cripple regular season revenue.

Another problem with the NHL are teams in cities with no market for ice hockey, so why on earth would they have teams in Miami, Vegas, Dallas, etc.? I know some of the cities have teams there, but obviously they aren't doing good. Ice hockey is not a southern sport and it never will be. NEVER. If they want more money, they'll take those teams and put them in Canada or Northern US.

I can agree with a shortened schedule if the amount of teams is reduced.

I don't see the logic behind only 9 forwards if they want to make the game faster and more exciting. Doing that only ensures 9 very tired forwards in the middle of the 3rd period.

That's all I'll address right now since I have to go.....maybe the reason fans don't "get" ice hockey is because most of their information is filtered to them by ESPN, who obviously don't "get" ice hockey....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Samdari

... if they change the rules in favor of the offense, purists will bitch, but still watch, and they will attract tons of new fans. ...

If even my limited hockey background finds the racetrack 9-8 scenario offensive & a 100% guaranteed zero interest scenario, then I can only imagine how diehard "purists" would react. In short, I don't believe they would watch that brand of hockey, and I don't believe any sport can succeed on an entirely new fan base if they throw away the old one (see WWF/WWE for details).

[Karim]

Winnipeg had over 15k (sold out) for EXHIBITION games between Canada vs. Finland/Switzerland junior teams.

Obviously then the solution is to put more teams where people don't give a shit about hockey...

[wheels]

Just adopt olympic rules for the NHL. Larger ice allows the skill players more room to maneuver, and the goons left to grab the air. The damn neutral zone trap is practically eliminated. Fighting is not allowed.

Sounds like great hockey to me. I'd love to see more skating and passing, less grabbing and fighting. It would be more exciting.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by wheels

Just adopt olympic rules for the NHL. Larger ice allows the skill players more room to maneuver, and the goons left to grab the air. The damn neutral zone trap is practically eliminated. Fighting is not allowed.

You hear this a lot, but there's a problem: it's not necessarily true.

Fighting aside, larger ice isn't necessarily the answer. Beyond the fact that it may not be practical (since the arenas have been designed for the North American size rinks), there's no proof that a bigger ice surface leads to a more open game. If anything, some would argue that more space means even more emphasis on clitch and grabbing. The trap becomes an even bigger part of the game plan. Have you ever watched a regular season game from a European league? It can be mind-numbing.

The Olympics is great hockey because you have the best players in the world, condensed to eight teams, playing games that they care about intensely. End of story.

[klayman]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

The Olympics is great hockey because you have the best players in the world, condensed to eight teams, playing games that they care about intensely. End of story.

[JeffR]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

If anything, some would argue that more space means even more emphasis on clitch and grabbing. The trap becomes an even bigger part of the game plan. Have you ever watched a regular season game from a European league? It can be mind-numbing.

I like Pierre McGuire's line about that: "Anybody who thinks a bigger ice surface means more exciting hockey should be forced to watch the 2000 World Junior final (a 0-0 Russia-Czech tie on big ice that was decided by a shootout after neither team was willing to take any chances at all during regular play) until they go insane."

[Bubba Wheels]

Make clinching an opposing player a 2 minute penalty.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Make clinching an opposing player a 2 minute penalty.

Which it already is. But I have to admit, I sympathize with the NHL on this issue. The basic dialog seems to go like this:

Fans: What's with all the clutching and grabbing? This sucks!
NHL: OK, we'll enforce the rules.
(Referees proceed to call 20 minors a game.)
Fans: What's with all the power plays? This sucks!
NHL: OK, we won't enforce the rules.
(Referees proceed to let the clutching/grabbing go uncalled.)
Fans: What's with all the clutching and grabbing? This sucks!

(Repeat indefintely.)

[sabotai]

If you want to open up the game some, get rid of the red line. It will make the nuetral zone trap a lot harder to pull off, thus will keep the game moving.

And on a different note, I can't think of a reason why automatic icing is not a rule in the NHL. It's just common sense. You don't have people skating hard to get to it, you have fewer people either getting rode into the wall or sliding into the wall, you have fewer injuries.

I do like the idea of making sure there is only 1 ro 2 games on a specific night or two each week so that teams can start getting national exposure, and will increase interest in players not on a local team. Like MNF and ESPN's Sunday night football.

As I said above, I don't agree with their logic in the 16 (out of 20) playoff teams. They say it will increase casual fan interest. I say it will lower it. I mean, if your team is just halfway decent, you know it will make the playoffs, so why would the casual fan even bother to follow the team during the regular season?

Expanding the net by a foot is just idiotic.

Reduction in pad size for goalies.....so they want to make nets BIGGER and goalies SMALLER.....why even bother having a goalie?

I do think a "SkyCam" type thing would be great for hockey on TV.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

The NHL re allignment doesnt really fix any thing. Surprised there were like 2 teams in Canada and Vegas got a team and non in hockey Hotbed of North Dakota or even the Northwest.

I really wanted to see this, too. Hockey in a place where it's popular, rather than trying to milk TV dollars in venues like LA where no one cares.

Don't they realize those folks in Green Bay are on to something?

[bbor]

How bout we just get the M'F'ers on the ice.Then we'll work on the on ice product.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bbor

How bout we just get the M'F'ers on the ice.Then we'll work on the on ice product.

Hey, hey! We're talking about realistic things here .

[bbor]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Hey, hey! We're talking about realistic things here .

My Bad

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Which it already is. But I have to admit, I sympathize with the NHL on this issue. The basic dialog seems to go like this:

Fans: What's with all the clutching and grabbing? This sucks!
NHL: OK, we'll enforce the rules.
(Referees proceed to call 20 minors a game.)
Fans: What's with all the power plays? This sucks!
NHL: OK, we won't enforce the rules.
(Referees proceed to let the clutching/grabbing go uncalled.)
Fans: What's with all the clutching and grabbing? This sucks!

(Repeat indefintely.)

Yeah, that's how the last 5 or so seasons have been. They called them for the first 20 or so games and then just laid off as people got upset. And this keeps happening.

SI

[klayman]

Originally Posted by sabotai

If you want to open up the game some, get rid of the red line. It will make the nuetral zone trap a lot harder to pull off, thus will keep the game moving.

I read somewhere that in leagues where the red line has been removed, the defense usually just sits back more, afraid to commit, and the attacking team ends up loosing the offensive zone easier. This just ends up resulting in more giveaways then the trap could ever produce.

That's not to say it isn't a valid idea, just not the end all solution that a lot of people actually think it is.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by klayman

I read somewhere that in leagues where the red line has been removed, the defense usually just sits back more, afraid to commit, and the attacking team ends up loosing the offensive zone easier. This just ends up resulting in more giveaways then the trap could ever produce.

That's not to say it isn't a valid idea, just not the end all solution that a lot of people actually think it is.

College hockey has eliminated the 2-line pass, has automatic icing and no fighting is allowed. I think it's more exciting, but that's probably because I care more about the teams involved, each game means a lot more because there are fewer of them and the skill differential is great enough that the good players can stand out and effect the game more.

Any proposal for "fixing" the NHL should start with one principle - it will never be on par with the 3 major team sports, so stop trying to expand into southern markets, get a TV contract equal with those three and stop paying your players like you're a major sport. Cut the league to 20 teams or so, condensing the talent and giving each team about 8-10 skilled forwards instead of 2 lines each of grinders. Put about half the teams in Canada and half in hockey hotbeds in the US stretching across the northern part. Maybe one each in LA, STL and the SE for fans in those regions. Then do subtler things - instead of widening the goals, cut down more on the goalies pads some so the butterfly style is less effective and goalies have to be like they were in the 80's - flopping around and reaching for pucks instead of just positioning themselves right. Maybe add a little more room behind the net. The other option would be 4 on 4 all the time. It's been done before (hockey was 6 skaters each back in like 1920) and would put more emphasis on speed and skill and open the ice up. But without first acknowledging that hockey will never be on par with the other 3 major sports it's all hopeless.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I do like the idea of making sure there is only 1 ro 2 games on a specific night or two each week so that teams can start getting national exposure, and will increase interest in players not on a local team. Like MNF and ESPN's Sunday night football.

I may have mentioned this in the past, but I'd love to see the NHL go to a fixed schedule: all teams play three games a week. Games are held on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday nights. However, one game each day is moved to the next night -- i.e. you have one game in the entire league on Wed., Fri and Sunday night. (Leaving Monday night free because football owns it.)

It's essentially the same model as football, except repeated three times a week. So you'd always know that Saturday night was hockey night, but you'd be checking the schedule to see who had the Sunday game that week.

You could start on October 1 and get through a 72-game schedule by the end of March. That said, it's probably not realistic since the NBA will control the building availability.

[Blackadar]

My suggestions:

Auto-icing
No two-line pass rule - make the game more wide open
Ties are decided by 2 OTs, then shootouts
20 teams, 12 make the playoffs (like the NFL, the top teams get byes)
Shorten the schedule

[Maple Leafs]

My suggestion for ties:

1. Make OT ten minutes long.
2. Make ties worth zero points in the standings.

Let's face it, the problem now is that teams don't play to win, even with the (ridiculous) bonus point on overtime. So make a tie as good as a loss and see if that's enough to make these coaches actually try a little offense.

An alternate approach would be to hand out points like this:
Regulation win: 3 points
OT win: 2 points
OT loss: 1 point
Tie: 1 point
Regulation loss: 0 points

Basically the same setup as they have now, except you no longer have OT games being magically worth more in the standings than other games. By make a regulation win worth more than an OT win, you get away from the big problem of the current system: teams that sit back and do nothing during the third period, waiting for the "risk-free" overtime session.

[wheels]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

You hear this a lot, but there's a problem: it's not necessarily true.

Fighting aside, larger ice isn't necessarily the answer. Beyond the fact that it may not be practical (since the arenas have been designed for the North American size rinks), there's no proof that a bigger ice surface leads to a more open game. If anything, some would argue that more space means even more emphasis on clitch and grabbing. The trap becomes an even bigger part of the game plan. Have you ever watched a regular season game from a European league? It can be mind-numbing.

The Olympics is great hockey because you have the best players in the world, condensed to eight teams, playing games that they care about intensely. End of story.

Good point. I didn't think of it that way. I just want the best skilled players to be able to use their skills instead of being held and mobbed.

[Tekneek]

I'm sure ESPN has all the answers. I'd like them to figure out how to properly put together a hockey broadcast before they start "fixing" other things. All they have to do is watch one broadcast on TSN or CBC to find out how to do it the right way. After they learn those lessons, they can start spouting off about the inner workings of the sport.

[Tekneek]

What would I prefer? I would prefer no OT for regular season games at all. If you presume that you must have that, I would go with this :

Points -
3 points for regulation victories.
2 points for an OT victory.
1 point for shoot-out victory.
No points for losing.

Incentive to try and score, rather than play for OT:
Team with most shots-on-goal in the game has a man advantage for the OT.

If your purpose for requiring OT is to resolve the outcome, then I would prefer this be employed. Like I said before, though, I'd rather not have OT during the regular season at all.

[Karim]

Even if these M'F'ers got back on the ice tomorrow, I really wouldn't care. This thing has killed my enthusiasm and got me wondering why I was ever cheering for these guys. I'll still watch/read/listen to games but won't go out of my way to go to games or devote the time I once did.

[Johnny93g]

even my enthousiasm is gone.....still, id watch every leaf game i could if it started tommorow, but if it takes next season to get the system fixed, then im all for it....my Leafs are gonna be losers no matter what happens, so im fine with it....as far as fixing the game, i dont think there is anything wrong with it.....Stanley Cup was pretty exciting this year.....even the Leaf/sens first round serious which was pretty low scoring was very exciting.....13 goals in a game doesnt make it more exciting then a 3-2 game......also, im for the old ot system....5 on 5...you score, you win, you dont you lose....ties happen, live with it...if you lose, you dont deserve a point

Ok, now i miss hockey again