Article by Michael Farber at Sports Illustrated touches on several topics, but the second half addresses some business issues and beliefs on what's needed to drive TV and fan interest: Seems obvious that there is a belief among NHL GMs and perhaps league execs that more goal scoring results in more excitement and greater fan interest. The bone I would pick with the above, "offense has been sclerotic" is that it's a bit misleading. It may be that the result of all those offensive opportunities isn't yielding as many goals, for several reasons, but is it safe to conclude that the offensive game and opportunities are lacking or diminished from the Gretzky/Lemieux eras? There is a school of thought that suggest the scoring during that era was mostly a result of the great disparity in the NHL at that time. Are the GMs and the league targeting a symptom and not a root cause? Enter the 45% solution, which the first half of the article addresses (size of goalie pads and the effect that will have on goaltenders). The take home might be that the league is indicating it's willing to do a lot of nips and tucks to try to get more goals. There's even a stated metric, 1.5 G/gm more on average. What exactly does that mean and will it really make that much of a difference? One also has to be cognizant that you can increase scoring per game but that it may come more easily to the guys who already aren't as challenged, perhaps widening the gap between the best and worst.