How I'd re-do the league

[Free Edler]

I dug up this little gem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZMVR4cEuZ8

I would say I have to agree and it is a crime that Winnipeg, and Quebec City do not have NHL teams.

I don't see why it's such a crime. Neither city has an NHL-ready rink (MTS Centre capacity is only 15,000, not enough to sustain an NHL team, Le Colisee is a dump), neither city has the corporate dollars at its disposal, and neither team was competitive financially when team payrolls were $15 million. Now they're going to be rising into the upper $40-millions. Do the math, neither city can compete, especially when larger cities that already have arenas (Portland, Houston, Kansas City), corporate backing, and large TV markets do. It's an economic reality that neither city will ever see NHL hockey again.

 

[crashlanding]

Call it from upstairs if you have to. Have someone upstairs watch the game on a monitor or just from an overhead position and call it after the play is blown dead.

Your basic 1-2-2 trap is extremely easy to pick up. Usually two D on the blue line facing towards the offensive zone, two wingers on or near the red line facing the offensive zone and one forechecker who steers the puck carrier towards the trapping wingers.

Just what the NHL needs, a mysterious, complete judgement call made by someone the fans can't see. I'd love to see the Cup get decided on a call like that.

 

[KeydGV21]

How can this really be done? Mandate that a team must have at least three players in the offensive zone by three seconds after carrying it in? This is too open to interpretation.

There were rumors at least of the NHL looking into an illegal defense.

A small group of general managers raised the possibility of instituting an illegal defence rule during the meetings with league officials and players in Detroit last week. Like an NBA rule that was used until two years ago, it prevents the defending teams from circling the wagons into zone protection, the hockey version would require one player to be up ice as a deep forechecker when the other team had puck possession near its goal.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/04/12/993231.html

I’m not sure how practical it is but it’s at least conceivably reasonable enough to enforce that the topic was brought up.

Generally the idea I had heard was to not let forwards skate backwards in the neutral zone.

9. Ban forwards from skating backward in the neutral zone
This might sound radical, but it's not much different from outlawing zone defenses in the NBA. At least experiment with it in preseason.
It's difficult to legislate a trapping defense out of the game, but this certainly makes it difficult to trap.
How it would work is that defensemen are allowed to skate backward, but if any of the team's forwards assume a defensive posture through the neutral zone, it would be a bench penalty for illegal defense.
Obviously the use of the term "defensive posture" is needed because there are times when a player could skate backward if he were trying to get himself in a better position for a pass.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/allen/2004-02-05-allen_x.htm

My problem is that with some 7th defensemen taking shifts at forward and officials not being sure about AHL call-ups and their position it’s a disaster waiting to happen. The easiest solution to this, should the NHL want to go this way, would just have defenders wear an armband signifying who can skate backwards. If you don’t want to mess with the uniforms, the best way, IMO, would be for defenders to have to wear a number in a certain range, much like the NFL forces offensive linemen to wear numbers in a certain range.

These both would be hard to enforce, but at least the backwards skating would be much more enforceable then fore checking to a certain depth.

… I’ve also heard a rumor (might have been a radio host's sugestion?) about an illegal defense rule that would be used to curtail shot blocking (and was actually the link I was looking for to prove something like this could called), but I can’t find anything on it so my best guess it that it was in fact just a rumor/talk radio fodder

 

[GSC2k2*]

Says the logistics of an 82-game season with back-to-back games in different cities on different nights. Says plane reservations. Says arena lease agreements and staffing restrictions. Says logistics and everything else an 82-game regular-season has to deal with.

It has NOTHING to do with the athletes or their conditioning, and everything to do with the realities of staging a professional sports regular season on ice.

I swear, some hockey fans assume other hockey fans just parrot what they hear instead of thinking that maybe, just maybe, someone else has put some thought into it and come up with the same thing that "standard wisdom" has said. Friggin' arrogant fans.

Basketball experiences every one of those "challenges". E-v-er-y single one. In exactly the same way.

Incidentally, I hope you are aware that professional sports teams charter their airplanes.

Not a single one of them is an impediment at all. Had you put an ounce of thought into your arrogant reply (or at least an attempted arrogant reply, since the quality of your reasoning makes you look a little silly to be acting arrogantly), you would have understood that.

 

[Sotnos]

I dug up this little gem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZMVR4cEuZ8

I would say I have to agree and it is a crime that Winnipeg, and Quebec City do not have NHL teams.

Wow, what an obnoxious shot at Carolina.

 

[jamiebez]

Basketball experiences every one of those "challenges". E-v-er-y single one. In exactly the same way.

Basketball OTs aren't nearly as long as hockey ones have the potential to be, and they're far less frequent. The longest NBA game aver was only 78 minutes of playing time, and that was over 50 years ago. That makes a huge difference in TV coverage - networks will forgive you going 10 minutes over a few times a year, but not a whole hour over 10 times a year.

And conditioning is a much bigger factor in hockey than basketball. ESPN printed the results of a study a couple of years ago that said hockey is the #2 sport (behind boxing) in terms of aerobic requirement. Plus, I believe injuries are more frequent in hockey, and this is only exacerbated by the potential for long games.

Besides that, it's a huge advantage in back-to-back games. For example, if the Ottawa/Buffalo game had gone to three OTs last night, Montreal would be salivating waiting in Ottawa to play the Sens tonight. In the playoffs, back-to-back games are almost between the same two teams, so any advantage is negated.

As a side note (not that your post suggests this), I don't see why people consider ties such an abomination. With a 10-min 4-on-4 OT - or even 3-on-3 as I suggested earlier in this thread - you'd likely see ties down to 5-6 per team, per year (as a guess). Is that so terrible?

 

[Whiplash27]

Just what the NHL needs, a mysterious, complete judgement call made by someone the fans can't see. I'd love to see the Cup get decided on a call like that.

Nice that this comment comes from a Devils fan. God forbid their precious trap was taken away.

It's as easy as if the trap is illegal then by the time the playoffs come you should know not to use it. It's quite simple actually. This isn't our puck over the glass rule which is something that is usually accidental. The trap is a system and players are very well aware if they are using it.

Anyway, for OT 10 minute 4 on 4 then Shootout is the best idea IMO. However, I remember reading something about how players don't want OT to be any longer than it is. So that'd be a longshot.

I still say
3 for regulation win
2 for OT win
and if you really want to squeeze it
1 for Shootout win
0 for loss

Maybe that will force teams to press even harder in OT to win because they know that going to OT will cost them a point and going to Shootout will cost them another point.
W-OTW-SOW-L

So you have an extra category. It will still make things more interesting.
Either that or we keep it how it is now and get rid of the whole OT Loss point.
W-L

 

[KeydGV21]

Basketball OTs aren't nearly as long as hockey ones have the potential to be, and they're far less frequent. The longest NBA game aver was only 78 minutes of playing time, and that was over 50 years ago. That makes a huge difference in TV coverage - networks will forgive you going 10 minutes over a few times a year, but not a whole hour over 10 times a year.

And conditioning is a much bigger factor in hockey than basketball. ESPN printed the results of a study a couple of years ago that said hockey is the #2 sport (behind boxing) in terms of aerobic requirement. Plus, I believe injuries are more frequent in hockey, and this is only exacerbated by the potential for long games.

Besides that, it's a huge advantage in back-to-back games. For example, if the Ottawa/Buffalo game had gone to three OTs last night, Montreal would be salivating waiting in Ottawa to play the Sens tonight. In the playoffs, back-to-back games are almost between the same two teams, so any advantage is negated.

As a side note (not that your post suggests this), I don't see why people consider ties such an abomination. With a 10-min 4-on-4 OT - or even 3-on-3 as I suggested earlier in this thread - you'd likely see ties down to 5-6 per team, per year (as a guess). Is that so terrible?

I assume you're talking about this...http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

Hockey's ranked two overall for sports, but it's in a tie for 11th in endurance (the closest to aerobic)

Anyways, it'd be idiotic at best to do an infinite overtime during the regular season... I'd love to see that team that starts an 8:00 game on a Friday play 4 overtimes and then have a 7:00 start in another city on Saturday night...boy would that game on Saturday do wonders to sell the game, especially when the team gets caught up in customs like the Canadiens had happen to them this weekend.

 

[HansH]

Basketball experiences every one of those "challenges". E-v-er-y single one. In exactly the same way.

BZZZT! But thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts.

Let's see -- how many NBA games go to overtime as a percentage of the league total? Now, compare that to the percentage of NHL games that go to OT. Now, how long is an NBA overtime? Less than half a quarter. How many NBA games go even to a THIRD overtime, much less a total amount of overtime that is more than half of the full game?

Now, compare that to the percentage of NHL overtime games (in the playoffs, because that's where infinite OT is played) that go to double overtime. To triple overtime. And beyond. Now multiply that percentage by a full slate of games every week, and tell me that the NBA faces "every single one" of those challenges in "exactly the same way"... and I'll be glad to laugh in your face along with everyone else when you make a ridiculous fool of yourself by doing so.

Other issues -- NBA games don't require 20 minutes between overtime periods to resurface the hardwood. Again, more time added to the end of the game that the NBA doesn't have to deal with, that makes the logistics unworkable.

Incidentally, I hope you are aware that professional sports teams charter their airplanes.

Honestly, no, I didn't -- it makes sense once you say that, at least at the major league level. Not all professional sports teams charter -- I know that for a fact, as I've twice shared commercial airline flights with professional hockey teams (the Minnesota Moose and the San Diego Gulls)... but that's me nitpicking on you for using "professional" when you really meant to say "major league".

Not a single one of them is an impediment at all. Had you put an ounce of thought into your arrogant reply (or at least an attempted arrogant reply, since the quality of your reasoning makes you look a little silly to be acting arrogantly), you would have understood that.

Dude, you brought the arrogance first -- and if they aren't an impediment, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as the NHL WOULD ALREADY BE DOING INFINITE OVERTIME. EVERY single one of those (other than the plane flights, as you pointed out) is a VERY REAL impediment to implementing infinite overtime IN THE REGULAR SEASON. If you had put an ounce of thought into your arrogant attempt to put someone "in their place" for daring to question you, you would have understood that -- given that the quality of your reasoning shows that you're more interested in beating your chest and screaming "I'm right" than actually engaging in discussion about the topic. And THAT makes you look even sillier than you claim I do.

But hey, go ahead and talk to NHL teams and tell them there's no impediment, since you clearly know better. Let us know how that goes.

 

[Brad*]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the current system. In fact, I didn't have a problem with ties. I'm fine with a shootout in the regular season, and then playing until there's a winner in the playoffs.

But in the regular season, continuous OT doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why put players through so much more work for an extra point? The more time spent on the ice, the more time a player is at risk for injury. Plus, extra time adds up. I personally think the season is too long already. Adding continuous overtime would just pile on unnecessary regular season minutes, and undoubtedly lead to ridiculous things like multi-OT games in the middle of November. Is avoiding the shootout really worth all that? I personally don't think so.

 

[Jarnberg]

How I'd re-do the league:

1 - First of all, move Carolina and Phoenix to proven hockey markets like Kansas City and Seattle.

The late 90's Expansion has diluted the talent so lets get rid of Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, Minnesota. Plus we've had more then enough time to judge those markets and it will never work in those places.

The early 90's expansion also further hurt the league in terms of talent and terrible choices for franchise locations. Plus I don't like their logos or jerseys, they aren't classic enough and have helped ruin the game. So lets get rid of Anaheim, San Jose, Florida, Tampa Bay and Ottawa.

Taking in those WHA teams was a terrible idea so we need to get rid the newly moved Kansas City and Seattle franchises, Quebec (moved back from Colorado where they had no fans) and Edmonton.

The Capital's attendance in the 70's was terrible, even though they have Ovechkin now, so they're gone. The Devils have always had attendance problems so lets move them back to Colorado and then back to Kansas City. Kansas City was failed market so axe that franchise. Calgary is to move back to Atlanta, where it will also fail inevitability, so get rid of them too. The Islanders, well they have Wang so they're gone too (plus the fishsticks logo gives more reason to axe them).

Vancouver and Buffalo were bad places to locate franchises, they haven't sold out all their games in history, so lets fold them.

Dallas should move back to Minnesota, they didn't have every seat filled during the All Star game. We should split the franchise in half, moving half of it to Cleveland and then back to California.

The NHL shouldn't have added more teams to the Original Six, so lets just fold Philadelphia, St.Louis, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Half of Minnesota, and Los Angeles.

We're back to the good old days, the Original Six.

2 - Equipment has helped ruin the game. No more helmets for players or goalies. Only wooden sticks are to be used. Jerseys are to go back to being real sweaters.

3 - Ads on the boards take away from the game, so no more advertising.

4 - No TV deal. The game isn't meant to be shown to other people. Hockey is a niche sport.

5 - Instead of ties, each team will send two players in a battle royale at center ice. The winner is determined by who is left standing.

6 - Keep Bettman running the show.

 

[krudmonk]

How I'd re-do the league:

1 - First of all, move Carolina and Phoenix to proven hockey markets like Kansas City and Seattle.

The late 90's Expansion has diluted the talent so lets get rid of Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, Minnesota. Plus we've had more then enough time to judge those markets and it will never work in those places.

The early 90's expansion also further hurt the league in terms of talent and terrible choices for franchise locations. Plus I don't like their logos or jerseys, they aren't classic enough and have helped ruin the game. So lets get rid of Anaheim, San Jose, Florida, Tampa Bay and Ottawa.

Taking in those WHA teams was a terrible idea so we need to get rid the newly moved Kansas City and Seattle franchises, Quebec (moved back from Colorado where they had no fans) and Edmonton.

The Capital's attendance in the 70's was terrible, even though they have Ovechkin now, so they're gone. The Devils have always had attendance problems so lets move them back to Colorado and then back to Kansas City. Kansas City was failed market so axe that franchise. Calgary is to move back to Atlanta, where it will also fail inevitability, so get rid of them too. The Islanders, well they have Wang so they're gone too (plus the fishsticks logo gives more reason to axe them).

Vancouver and Buffalo were bad places to locate franchises, they haven't sold out all their games in history, so lets fold them.

Dallas should move back to Minnesota, they didn't have every seat filled during the All Star game. We should split the franchise in half, moving half of it to Cleveland and then back to California.

The NHL shouldn't have added more teams to the Original Six, so lets just fold Philadelphia, St.Louis, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Half of Minnesota, and Los Angeles.

We're back to the good old days, the Original Six.

The sad thing is that most fans of O6 teams would embrace this as if you're serious. They love to be part of their elite little club.

 

[Mr BLUEandWHITE]

I don't see why it's such a crime. Neither city has an NHL-ready rink (MTS Centre capacity is only 15,000, not enough to sustain an NHL team, Le Colisee is a dump), neither city has the corporate dollars at its disposal, and neither team was competitive financially when team payrolls were $15 million. Now they're going to be rising into the upper $40-millions. Do the math, neither city can compete, especially when larger cities that already have arenas (Portland, Houston, Kansas City), corporate backing, and large TV markets do. It's an economic reality that neither city will ever see NHL hockey again.

It's not like he was talking about money. (it's about the fans) Without revenue sharing there is a lot of teams that would not survive today anyways. Take Nashville for example, the Maple Leafs had to give them 10 mil in revenue sharing last year. This year Pierre Lebrum said even though Tampa has one of the best attendance's they are projected to lose 9 mil. I think the Leafs management would rather give that 10 mil to Winnipeg or Quebec then Nashville.

Plus Bettman said it could work under the new CBA.

 

[Sotnos]

It's not like he was talking about money. (it's about the fans)

Sentimentality doesn't get you a team, sorry.

Without revenue sharing there is a lot of teams that would not survive today anyways. Take Nashville for example, the Maple Leafs had to give them 10 mil in revenue sharing last year. This year Pierre Lebrum said even though Tampa has one of the best attendance's they are projected to lose 9 mil.

No idea who Pierre Lebrum is, but why are you bringing up Tampa when they don't get revenue sharing?

 

[Spydey629]

1- NO TEAM MOVES!!! The only stipulation being that team may move after it been in the arena it currently plays in for 15 or more years, AND attendance averages less than 10,000 for five straight years.

2- All rinks built after 2010 will be 200 x 100. At some point there will be another "new wave" of arenas. This way, you are already planning for the change.

3- EXPAND by two more teams between 2011 and 2015, these teams would be playing in new buildings, so they would get an early benefit from the 200 x 100 rule. May the best two markets win, whether Canada or in the States.

3- I'd keep most of the game rules the same. The on ice product is headed in the right direction, play wise.

4- I would adopt Brett Hull's scoring ideas: Decrease the size of a goalies catching glove (lose the blocker portion), and decrease the pipes in the actual net from 2" to 1", to "make the net bigger", yet keeping it 4' x 6'.

5- Mandatory face shields of some kind, full cage or full visor - player's choice. Grandfathered in, starting with the 2007 Draft Class. The only exception to this rule comes next.

6- Expand the shoot-out to 5 shooters aside. Any other entity that has a shoot-out has five. Three is just too quick. You want to get the fans excited, make it more worth their while. Shooters would also be encouraged to NOT wear helmets during the shoot-out. The marketing potential is great in the shoot-out, and the potential for injury is minimal.

7-Marketing, marketing, marketing. I want a player to endorse anything and everything. These guys NEED to be household names. Advertise on anything and everything, too.

8- For the 8,452nd time... keep Versus, add one more cable network. NBC gets all seven games of the Finals and the All-Star Game.

Discuss.

 

[Jarnberg]

1- NO TEAM MOVES!!! The only stipulation being that team may move after it been in the arena it currently plays in for 15 or more years, AND attendance averages less than 10,000 for five straight years.

2- All rinks built after 2010 will be 200 x 100. At some point there will be another "new wave" of arenas. This way, you are already planning for the change.

3- EXPAND by two more teams between 2011 and 2015, these teams would be playing in new buildings, so they would get an early benefit from the 200 x 100 rule. May the best two markets win, whether Canada or in the States.

3- I'd keep most of the game rules the same. The on ice product is headed in the right direction, play wise.

4- I would adopt Brett Hull's scoring ideas: Decrease the size of a goalies catching glove (lose the blocker portion), and decrease the pipes in the actual net from 2" to 1", to "make the net bigger", yet keeping it 4' x 6'.

5- Mandatory face shields of some kind, full cage or full visor - player's choice. Grandfathered in, starting with the 2007 Draft Class. The only exception to this rule comes next.

6- Expand the shoot-out to 5 shooters aside. Any other entity that has a shoot-out has five. Three is just too quick. You want to get the fans excited, make it more worth their while. Shooters would also be encouraged to NOT wear helmets during the shoot-out. The marketing potential is great in the shoot-out, and the potential for injury is minimal.

7-Marketing, marketing, marketing. I want a player to endorse anything and everything. These guys NEED to be household names. Advertise on anything and everything, too.

8- For the 8,452nd time... keep Versus, add one more cable network. NBC gets all seven games of the Finals and the All-Star Game.

Discuss.

A lot better than almost all of the "what I would do" or "omg fire buttman" threads. I like em. My only thing would be to perhaps get someone better than Versus if we could. Unless of course Versus increased their viewing audience and featured more hockey coverage during the week and showed a sports highlight show.

 

[Spydey629]

A lot better than almost all of the "what I would do" or "omg fire buttman" threads. I like em. My only thing would be to perhaps get someone better than Versus if we could. Unless of course Versus increased their viewing audience and featured more hockey coverage during the week and showed a sports highlight show.

Thanks. I LOLed at your suggestions

Honestly, I think we're stuck with Versus - which I honestly don't think is a bad thing. Mondays and Tuesdays on VS. and Thursdays (?) on (insert more widely distributed cable channel here) would be ideal. Add NBC on weekends and we're pretty good.

If we go back to ESPN at any point, I want Sunday Nights. An 8pm single, exclusive game of the week, would be a true "National Hockey Night" on either the mothership (winter) or the Deuce (football/baseball). If that were to happen, VS. goes to Tuesdays and a double header every Thursday.

 

[kdb209]

Basketball experiences every one of those "challenges". E-v-er-y single one. In exactly the same way.

Incidentally, I hope you are aware that professional sports teams charter their airplanes.

Not a single one of them is an impediment at all. Had you put an ounce of thought into your arrogant reply (or at least an attempted arrogant reply, since the quality of your reasoning makes you look a little silly to be acting arrogantly), you would have understood that.

Not really "exactly the same".

OTs in Basketball are MUCH less frequent in the NBA than in the NHL, double OTs extremely rare, and longer than that virtually non-existant. When you score 100 pts a night (instead of 2 or 3 goals) ties become much less likely.

A quick google to get some data:

http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/stats/overtime.html

In their entire 18 year history, the Timberwolves have had a grand total of 84 OT games (4.67/yr avg), only 9 double OT games (once every other year), and zero games longer than 2OT.

On top of that, you don't need to Zamboni the court between OT periods.

 

[Whiplash27]

On top of that, you don't need to Zamboni the court between OT periods.

lol would be awesome if they did

 

[no13matssundin]

How I'd Redo the NHL

24 teams.
SMYTHE DIVISION: Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg

NORRIS: Colorado, Minnesota, Chicago, St Louis, Detroit, Columbus

ADAMS: Buffalo, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, Boston

PATRICK: Hartford, New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

In Division Playoffs like it used to be.

78 Game Sched.... 5 months long.

All-Star Game has a live fan draft for teams... winning team splits 1 Mil.... 500K to the players.... 500K shared between the fans in the seats at the All Star Game.

Rule Changes: Illegal Defense call enacted (any time a Trap Defense is used a 4 min major is called)

Olympic Sized Rinks.

last change...instead of 19K seat arenas, the advent of 50K hockey stadium ( a-la Heritage Classic... only the stadiums will be specifically designed for hockey)

the reason? So that NHL ticket prices can be slashed league-wide to make it much more affordable (read low to mid level MLB prices... around 34$ avg.) without taking a massive bite out of league revenues due to contraction.

 

[krudmonk]

How I'd Redo the NHL

24 teams.
SMYTHE DIVISION: Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg

NORRIS: Colorado, Minnesota, Chicago, St Louis, Detroit, Columbus

ADAMS: Buffalo, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, Boston

PATRICK: Hartford, New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

Oh, so you're the reason people hate Leafs fans...

 

[Stephen]

Why would you move Washington? And I hope Las Vegas never get's a team, that's just trouble waiting to happen. Here's an idea for the re-alignment

Adams Division

Buffalo
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec
Toronto
Washington

Patrick

Boston
Hartford
New Jersey
New York I
New York R
Philadelphia

Why would Washington be in the Norris Division (Northeast) when every city in the Atlantic is closer?

 

[Mr BLUEandWHITE]

Why would Washington be in the Norris Division (Northeast) when every city in the Atlantic is closer?

I know I was thinking how to split the division. So I thought of the following factors:

Past and Present Rivalries:

Boston - Hartford
NYI - NYR
PHI - NJD

Toronto - Ottawa
Montreal - Quebec

I know Buffalo - Washington do not have a great rivalry, but they do have something going with Oveckin - Briere hopefully.

Also I wanted 2 original six teams in 3 divisions so that's how I got...TOR-MON, DET-CHI, and NYR-BOS.

that's why.

 

[Stephen]

that's why.

What about Boston-Montreal? That rivalry is top 3 in NHL history. And is probably more important that little old Hartford.

And I don't think you can base alignments of NHL franchises on Briere vs Ovechkin..

 

[Mr BLUEandWHITE]

What about Boston-Montreal? That rivalry is top 3 in NHL history. And is probably more important that little old Hartford.

And I don't think you can base alignments of NHL franchises on Briere vs Ovechkin..

I know BOS-MON, but ahh OK I guess I will change it, even though I am not too happy because I did not want to split the original six teams unevenly.


Adams

Boston
Montreal
Buffalo
Quebec
Toronto
Ottawa

Patrick

Hartford
New York I
New York R
Philadelphia
Washington
New Jersey