New League, New Rules, Better Game

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by BrickRed, Sep 13, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BrickRed

    BrickRed Registered User

    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Home Page:

    The owners need to find a way to:
    1) make money for each club (not a just a handful that are the same teams driving up the salaries of superstars and role player's alike);
    2) assure an even playing field (ie. competative balance) year after year (I am tired of using the Flames and Lightning as "proof" of competetive balance -- the Flames couldn't afford to keep its entire first line togther and Tampa Bay has been unable to keep its team together due to damn near every restricted or unrestricted player thinking they were the reason for the Cup); and
    3) provide entertainment VALUE.

    If the player's don't want to participate in assisting the owners in meeting these very fair and reasonable goals then the owners have a right to restructure the league on its own and invite any player that wants to participate to do so.

    This NEW professional hockey league should, in my opinion and that of Ken Dryden, be 4 on 4 rather than 5 on 5.

    I am also in favor of the following rules:
    1) Defense must play the puck and not be allowed to trap (something like th illegal defenses prohibited in basketball)
    2) get rid of the red line
    3) get rid to the two line pass rule
    4) 1980s sized goalie pads
    5) penalty after 5 icings to keep play moving and discourage icings.

    People will pay to seek this style of hockey.

    If there is not a cap, then the luxury tax should be less than $35M. The penalty for overspending should be 3 to 1 from dollar one. There should also be draft pick and playoff roster spot implications. The idea is this -- I team will have the ability to spend money to pursue the Cup in any or every year it chooses to do so but such a short sighted objective might affect the team for several years to come. The GM can decide but right now luxury tax in baseball is a farce because the Yankees will just spend the money to mix and match tens of millions of dollars worth of players, few other teams can do the same, and the only consequence is the Yankees having to write a check to MLB.

    I invite all comments.
  2. RangerBlues

    RangerBlues Registered User

    Apr 27, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    I fix stuff
    Ownership needs to be draged kicking and screaming into the 21's century, learn to market and sell your product instead of moaning about the money you cant make.
    As for rule changes, I don't have a problem with the trap, good passing, speed and skill kill a trap everytime.
    Get rid of the red line, but keep the 2 line pass rule.
    Goalie cannot be the first player to touch the puck in the zone(PP included)
    No penality on icings, but the player who does it starts the faceoff on the opposite goalline.
    I like 5 on 5, overtime should be a full period, 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie.
  3. capman29

    capman29 Guest

    Go to click on saopbox and you will change you way of thinking.
  4. Licentia

    Licentia Registered User

    Jun 29, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    There is no soapbox there. I don't see anything like you say.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2004
  5. Riddarn

    Riddarn 1980-2011

    Aug 2, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Eew. Hockey is 5 on 5. A 4 on 4 league creeps me out just thinking about it.

    You cannot outlaw sound defensive play.

    We europeans have been without the two line pass for a few years. It's not a big difference really. It means there will one or two more breakaways per game, other than that it's a flop. No increased scoring, however the end-to-end action could be a bit better with it, so why not. I don't see why you want to get rid of the red line though. We still need it to determin icings and stuff.

    Agree. Smaller goalie equipment = more net to shoot at.

    Don't agree. Thats a rule that would be confusing and probably hard to keep track of when the games get hot.

    Lets have the full 2 penalty minutes even if someone scores. That would benefit skilled teams with a good powerplay and discourage teams from taking too many penaltys.

    I hope they move the nets back against the back boards like it used to be and allow more curve on the sticks. Other than that, I got nothing.
  6. All I will comment on is the 4-on-4 suggestion.

    If the NHL goes 4-on-4, it would force that change throughout the game at every level.

    In the NHL, that means 3-5 less roster spots, which means lost jobs, which the players union would not tolerate, nor should they.

    At the junior/college level, less roster spots means less players have a chance to make pro hockey.

    Most importantly...

    At the minor hockey level, less kids on a team means more teams need to be in any given association, and more teams does not mean more ice time will be available. It means the exact opposite. The kids would get less ice time if the game goes to 4-on-4. Ultimately, kids would be discouraged from playing the game, which would be disastrous for the future of hockey.

    Long story short, with the game 4-on-4, less people get to play hockey. No matter what level you consider, that is wrong.
  7. Emerald City Bruin

    Emerald City Bruin I-90 W for 2500mi

    Aug 3, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Wouldn't one be enough? Why both?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"