How I'd re-do the league

frozenpondscum

Registered User
Jul 12, 2005
206
0
Atlanta
The shootout is an abomination that must be destroyed at all costs. At ALL costs.

10 minute OT, sudden death, 5-on-5. Winner (in OT or regulation) gets 3 points, loser (in OT or regulation) gets NO points. Tie game after OT is a tie game -- one point to each team.

The nets won't go away -- that's the insurance industry talking.

I don't care about the trapezoid one way or the other, and have come around on eliminating the two-line pass -- however, you MUST instate touch icing at all levels (as well as "touch-up" offsides).

Since we're being controversial -- take the NHL down to 28 teams (yes, I know, it will never happen). Remove the two teams with the lowest attendance average from the 2000-01 season (the first with all 30 teams) onwards (thus adjusting for a short-term variance) -- so bid farewell to Anaheim and Long Island (which makes sense, as they're both additions to arguably oversaturated markets).

PRINCE OF WALES CONFERENCE
Adams - Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota
Patrick - Columbus, Pittsburgh, Washington, Philadelphia, New Jersey, NY Rangers, Boston

CAMPBELL CONFERENCE
Norris - Dallas, St. Louis, Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida
Smythe - Vancouver, San Jose, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado

Anaheim and Long Island become natural AHL farm teams for Los Angeles and the Rangers, being only part of the massive AHL re-alignment that would go along with the NHL re-alignment.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE
Atlantic - Portland, Manchester, Providence, Long Island, Philadelphia, Hershey, Wilkes-Barre
Great Lakes - Syracuse, Rochester, Fort Wayne, Grand Rapids, Chicago, Milwaukee, Manitoba

AMERICAN CONFERENCE
Central - Houston, Bossier-Shreveport, Wichita, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Laredo, Colorado (Fort Collins/Loveland)
Pacific - Las Vegas, Stockton, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Ontario (inland from Los Angeles), San Diego, Fresno

Good divisions. But instead of contraction...add two expansion teams.
Add Winnipeg to the Adams, Islanders to the Patrick, Houston to the Norris, Ducks to the Smythe.

Season schedule:
6 games x 7 division opponents = 42
3 games x 8 inter-division, intra-conference opponents = 24
1 game x 16 inter-conference opponents = 16
Total stays 82

Playoffs round 1: the 1 vs. 8 and 2 vs. 7 series are 2-2-3 format, instead of 2-2-1-1-1. Cuts down on travel, gives the 1 and 2 seeds stronger home ice advantage which they've rightfully earned.

And in regular season make it a 10-minute 4-on-4 OT with an OT winner earning 2 points and OT loser earning zero. If no one scores, then have a shootout with the winner earning 1 point and the loser zero. This would discourage timidness in the OT.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Sorry for bringing this thread back from the dead, but I had meant to respond to these points about overtime and it simply slipped my mind. A lazy sunday afternoon seemed a good time to reply.

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.

Now, while some of those points may be valid, please revert back to what I was responding to. I said the NBA experiences "those" challenges in exactly the same way. And what were "those" challenges, one may ask? Why, they were the challenges set forth in your original post, which I quote for your ease of reference:

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.

For your benefit, I have underlined all of the reasons that you - YOU, not me - identified as being the reasons why OT could not be employed in the NHL. I responded to said reasons by pointing out - correctly - that the NBA experiences those same challenges. You then responded in your last paragraph above by pointing to a bunch of OTHER points that had nothing to do with your original reasons that you had expressly stated were thge reasons that had EVERYTHING to do with why OT was not viable in the regular season NHL.

Lest I paint too wide a brush, you do raise one (and only one) additional logistical point - the resurfacing of the ice. I tend to think that you may have never actually set foot inside an NHL rink, because if you did you would know that it takes about 8 or 9 minutes to zamboni the ice. I also tend to think that you might never have been to an NBA game, because if you did you would know that it generally takes them about 5 minutes or so (give or take a couple) before the OT to get their stuff together and get OT going. So three or four minutes - or heck, even ten, let's say - constitutes an insurmoutable challenge? And then, when the playoffs come in hockey, this insurmountable challenge is suddenly surmounted?


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".

You were right about my intent. Thank you for not nitpicking.


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.

Debating who brought the arrogance first is an exercise in sheer pedantry. Who cares? To answer your point of why the NHL is NOT doing it if it is such a great thing (a valid question), the real answer is that it would involve collective bargaining with the NHLPA. Also, at the end of the day, regular season single game results are simply not important enough to the powers that be or the players themselves.

As an aside, even though I hope that I have clarified where you went off the rails by adding new reasons after you had claimed to address all the reasons, I do want to add a point of my own. You are correct that NHL games result in more ties than NBA games. However, I must confess to being driven absolutely nuts by the fact that the first thing that comes out of everyone's mouths whenever this is discussed is the double and triple OT game.

Whatever you may think, it is my view that multiple OT games are a rarity in the playoffs. It is ridiculous for anyone to throw those out as a reason why infinite OT should not be used. Firstly, playoff OT is played 5 on 5. Secondly, the manner of play is dramatically different than regular season play. If I have to explain those points further or justify them to you, I give up right here and now. Regular season OT possibilities cannot reasonably be extrapolated from playoff OT for either of those reasons by themselves, much less both acting in concert.

Here is a stat that may interest you. Of about 160 OT games so far this season, about 100 have gone to the SO. However, this also means that nearly 40% of OT games were decided in a mere 5 minutes of 4-on-4 OT play. This ratio is achieved despite the tendency that ones sees these days of teams clamming up in the final minute or so of OT to ensure that they get to the SO (except if they have an advantage such as a PP or they are dominating the OT). If you extended the OT to unlimited, I believe it to be reasonable that OT would solve almost every game in the course of a single 4-on-4 OT period, with the vast majority in <10 minutes. Add to that the fact that, for teams with back-to-backs the next night, they would most likely take extraordinary chances to score so as to avoid being spent the next night.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->