Elimination of the Rover?

[Trottier]

...It [eliminating the rover] was done to open up the ice...

Which brings us to March 2015.

I stipulate up front that when it comes to rule changes, I am an ultra-conservative. (Perhaps reading the casualness in which the kiddies on the main board would like to defame the integrity of the game daily with changes has affected this strong POV, but I digress ).

That said, every time I watch an NHL OT now, I am struck by the fact that the game resembles watching an NHL game circa 1980s. Meaning, of course, that it is much more open. Why? Because these guys seemingly cover as much ice, as rapidly today...with just four skaters a side. And more ice opened up equals more scoring chances.

Yes, less hitting, but the NHL already discourages contact to a great degree, at least relative to earlier times. And the pace four-on-four is "merely" fast, as opposed to today's hyper-speed. So what?

BOTTOM LINE: I'm open to experimenting (only, at this point) with four on four hockey. Not in real games, yet. But somewhere. On the premise that just as it was time to get rid of the rover at one time, same thing applies here, IMO.

Put aside the fact that the NHLPA would find some reason to hate it (less jobs?) etc., I'd be curious to read informed responses.

If this belongs elsewhere, please move it. The elimination of the rover topic triggered this post.

 

[jarek]

Which brings us to March 2015.

I stipulate up front that when it comes to rule changes, I am an ultra-conservative. (Perhaps reading the casualness in which the kiddies on the main board would like to defame the integrity of the game daily with changes has affected this strong POV, but I digress ).

That said, every time I watch an NHL OT now, I am struck by the fact that the game resembles watching an NHL game circa 1980s. Meaning, of course, that it is much more open. Why? Because these guys seemingly cover as much ice, as rapidly today...with just four skaters a side. And more ice opened up equals more scoring chances.

Yes, less hitting, but the NHL already discourages contact to great degree, at least relative to earlier times. And the pace four-on-four is "merely" fast, as opposed to today's hyper-speed. So what?

BOTTOM LINE: I'm open to experimenting (only, at this point) with four on four hockey. Not in real games, yet. But somewhere. On the premise that just as it was time to get rid of the rover at one time, same thing applies here, IMO.

Put aside the fact that the NHLPA would find some reason to hate it (less jobs?) etc., I'd be curious to read informed responses.

If this belongs elsewhere, please move it. The elimination of the rover topic triggered this post.

I think the PA would aggressively oppose this to the point of striking if this were ever seriously considered, for the reason you stated - substantial loss of jobs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think the PA would aggressively oppose this to the point of striking if this were ever seriously considered, for the reason you stated - substantial loss of jobs.

It would only work if coupled with a healthy sized expansion in the number of teams, something that doesn't appear to be in the cards. (The NHL is likely to add 2 more teams in the near future, but that wouldn't be enough).

 

[jarek]

It would only work if coupled with a healthy sized expansion in the number of teams, something that doesn't appear to be in the cards. (The NHL is likely to add 2 more teams in the near future, but that wouldn't be enough).

How many teams would be required to make this tenable? 4? 6?

The loss of 4 players per team would mean 120 jobs are lost. Each team would then have 15 players + extras + whoever they pay in the minors. Teams are allowed to hold around 50 or so contracts, but most teams would hold maybe 40 or so?

So yeah.. I think a 4 team expansion would do it.

 

[Trottier]

I think the PA would aggressively oppose this to the point of striking if this were ever seriously considered, for the reason you stated - substantial loss of jobs.

Yes, some quick (imperfect) math suggests that four-on-four would eliminate approx. 4 jobs per squad (4 less forwards).

That multiplied by 30 teams = 120 players.

That means you'd have to make up the difference with approx. 6 new teams.

Oh well....

Editing: you beat me to it, jarek! And I trust your math more than my own.

 

[VanIslander]

Two of my many hockey history books tell the story.

The reason the rover position was abandoned was to save $$money$$! That I recall reading clearly.

When is a bit more fuzzy. I believe it was the NHA. But I will try and dig up an exact book reference in the coming days.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jobs

Very interesting question. Would there be an actual loss of jobs or would there be an improvement in the skill set?

18 skater roster could be broken down as 6 x 2 forward units and 3 x 2 defensive pairings. Although one of the forward units would have to feature swingmen who can play forward and defence. So instead of two enforcer or politically correct energy types you would have two multi skilled players.

Six main defensemen would not be possible to hide a specialist that cannot skate so the lumbering wing span/reach player would be impacted - replaced by smaller speed d-men.

The skater roster would require 6 centers at least - an upgrade in skill since centers are usually at the upper end of in terms of forward skill sets.The premium on skating will be significant. The weak skating 2-4th liners would disappear.

With the extra space you would eliminate a lot of the reckless hits. How many suspendable hits have happened during the 5 minute overtime? Likewise the obstruction type penalties would be reduced since it is easier to get and maintain separation.

The trap would virtually disappear so you would have a faster game.

In terms of ice time there would be little impact on the top six forwards or top 4 d-men. The other 8 would be a question of circumstance and merit.

The idea has potential.

 

[jarek]

Very interesting question. Would there be an actual loss of jobs or would there be an improvement in the skill set?

18 skater roster could be broken down as 6 x 2 forward units and 3 x 2 defensive pairings. Although one of the forward units would have to feature swingmen who can play forward and defence. So instead of two enforcer or politically correct energy types you would have two multi skilled players.

Six main defensemen would not be possible to hide a specialist that cannot skate so the lumbering wing span/reach player would be impacted - replaced by smaller speed d-men.

The skater roster would require 6 centers at least - an upgrade in skill since centers are usually at the upper end of in terms of forward skill sets.The premium on skating will be significant. The weak skating 2-4th liners would disappear.

With the extra space you would eliminate a lot of the reckless hits. How many suspendable hits have happened during the 5 minute overtime? Likewise the obstruction type penalties would be reduced since it is easier to get and maintain separation.

The trap would virtually disappear so you would have a faster game.

In terms of ice time there would be little impact on the top six forwards or top 4 d-men. The other 8 would be a question of circumstance and merit.

The idea has potential.

So instead of trimming down the rosters, you propose 2 extra 2 man forward units? Huh.. cool idea.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I was thinking about this exact topic the other day.

Something that crossed my mind in regard to NHLPA opposition:

- Expansion by 4 teams would more or less preserve the current number of jobs.
- Expansion should also add to revenue, assuming the new markets don't flop.
- Therefore the salary cap/floor range could be expected to continue to rise.
- A higher salary range divided by fewer roster spots --> significantly more money per player.

You're an NHLPA member. The league comes to you with a proposal to keep the same number of jobs, raise your salary, and make the league more expansive and entertaining. How are you voting?

 

[jarek]

For the talk about Walsh, I'd like to please point you guys to my bio of him: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=98751997&postcount=46

I really don't see how a player like this, that seemed to be a totally team guy who gave everything he had and did whatever it took to win would become totally useless because they lost one player on the ice..

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Two of my many hockey history books tell the story.

The reason the rover position was abandoned was to save $$money$$! That I recall reading clearly.

When is a bit more fuzzy. I believe it was the NHA. But I will try and dig up an exact book reference in the coming days.

This is often given as the reason, but I don't think it holds any water. At the same time that the rover was dropped in the NHA, NHA teams began using more substitutes in each game. The total number of players on the roster, and therefore the number of players being paid, did not change.

 

[tarheelhockey]

^ also, the fact that the NHA didn't have a monopoly on pro hockey talent made that sort of mentality... suspect. If the NHA didn't feel like paying star rovers, those players could just as easily take big paychecks in the PCHA.

Furthermore, the imposition of an NHA salary cap and player maximum occurred in 1912 whereas the final games with rovers were played in 1913. This was coincidental to the end of the rover, but it doesn't suggest that rover-quality players got any cheaper. It just means the total salary for all players was capped.

It's understandable that the salary cap and the elimination of the rover would be conflated since they occurred at more or less the same time, but it seems that they were only loosely related.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Very interesting question. Would there be an actual loss of jobs or would there be an improvement in the skill set?

18 skater roster could be broken down as 6 x 2 forward units and 3 x 2 defensive pairings. Although one of the forward units would have to feature swingmen who can play forward and defence. So instead of two enforcer or politically correct energy types you would have two multi skilled players.

Six main defensemen would not be possible to hide a specialist that cannot skate so the lumbering wing span/reach player would be impacted - replaced by smaller speed d-men.

The skater roster would require 6 centers at least - an upgrade in skill since centers are usually at the upper end of in terms of forward skill sets.The premium on skating will be significant. The weak skating 2-4th liners would disappear.

With the extra space you would eliminate a lot of the reckless hits. How many suspendable hits have happened during the 5 minute overtime? Likewise the obstruction type penalties would be reduced since it is easier to get and maintain separation.

The trap would virtually disappear so you would have a faster game.

In terms of ice time there would be little impact on the top six forwards or top 4 d-men. The other 8 would be a question of circumstance and merit.

The idea has potential.

A question. What about 4 2 man forward lines and 4 defensive pairs making 4 4 man units? Similar to how Detroit used 5 man units in the early '90s?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Talent

A question. What about 4 2 man forward lines and 4 defensive pairs making 4 4 man units? Similar to how Detroit used 5 man units in the early '90s?

Would take at least a generation to strike the required balance between forwards and defensemen. Presently an NHL team roster of 23 is 2 goalies, 7 or 8 defensemen and 13-14 forwards.

Detroit with four 5 man units would require, 12 forwards and 8 defensemen plus 1 spare, 2 goalies so it was within the norms.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Bumping this thread again because I stumbled across a small article which reminded me of it.

Rovers were in their swan song phase in 1921. The eastern leagues had done away with them already, and the western holdouts would switch to the 5-skater game a year later. In American collegiate hockey, 1921 was the first season without rovers, and only Harvard had put up a strong objection to dropping them. So, the quote below gives us a nice little snapshot of a conservative hockey figure who, after years of resistance, had finally been persuaded that the rover needed to go.

SIX-MAN HOCKEY.
Boston, February 12 -- The passing of seven-man hockey from American intercollegiate competition was indicated today by the statement of Alfred Winsor, former Harvard hockey coach, that he had become convinced of the superior qualities of the six-man game. Winsor has held out for seven play[er]s almost alone among United States college hockey heads. Expressing belief that Harvard would limit its team to six men next season, he said club and college play had convinced him that the six-man game with its roving features provides more action and more interest to spectators, although he still holds there is much merit to the team features of the seven-man play.

* note that the appeal of the more wide-open roverless game is described as its "roving features". This ironic turn of phrase really identifies the change in how rovers were used over the years -- that the rover had become something which stood in the way of actual roving.

 

[Ishdul]

I was thinking about this exact topic the other day.

Something that crossed my mind in regard to NHLPA opposition:

- Expansion by 4 teams would more or less preserve the current number of jobs.
- Expansion should also add to revenue, assuming the new markets don't flop.
- Therefore the salary cap/floor range could be expected to continue to rise.
- A higher salary range divided by fewer roster spots --> significantly more money per player.

You're an NHLPA member. The league comes to you with a proposal to keep the same number of jobs, raise your salary, and make the league more expansive and entertaining. How are you voting?

The issue I'd have from the NHLPA. If expansion is healthy by itself, that's well enough, but then you as the NHLPA would be expecting expansion anyways (and could therefore expect to gain 90 jobs instead of breaking even with similar). I mean, obviously as it stands the Vegas stuff seems bound to happen anyways. If expansion is unhealthy then there are a whole host of issues which might prevent this from happening (as you mentioned about new markets flopping).

Related; one of the big reasons expansion is being pushed right now is that the expansion fee would be untouched by the players and go solely to the owners.

 

[VanIslander]

I've read in two history books that the move was made to save money.

I'll dig up a reference.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The issue I'd have from the NHLPA. If expansion is healthy by itself, that's well enough, but then you as the NHLPA would be expecting expansion anyways (and could therefore expect to gain 90 jobs instead of breaking even with similar).

At risk of going OT -- in your own job, would you rather your company hire 90 new employees or give all current employees a significant raise?

NHLPA leadership might want those new jobs, but I'm guessing the voting membership could be persuaded to take the payday.

I've read in two history books that the move was made to save money.

I'll dig up a reference.

That certainly wasn't the case in American collegiate hockey...

 

[Johnny Engine]

At risk of going OT -- in your own job, would you rather your company hire 90 new employees or give all current employees a significant raise?

NHLPA leadership might want those new jobs, but I'm guessing the voting membership could be persuaded to take the payday.

That question becomes harder if you know the company is going to interview 90 new applicants anyway, and you have to go to those interviews to prove you deserve to keep your job.

 

[sr edler]

That certainly wasn't the case in American collegiate hockey...

Or in the amateur league in New York. When the six-man game was experimented with in 1914 free substitutes were also introduced.