This Is How To Make The League More Exciting

[Honeycutt]

Just raise the glass 5 or 6 feet to create less stoppages. Pucks out of play kill the flow of the game.

 

[Just Linda]

I have an idea, let's take the best part of hockey away and then the game will be more exciting.

 

[The Spaniard]

No more playoffs?

What's next?

No more sex?

No more bacon?

You are a one sick *************

 

[Gobben]

Awful idea.

Football in Europe is worse since they got rid of the playoffs. Individual games aren't more important, everything runs together now. There's no distinction for an individual game at all unless it's at the end of the season and the two teams playing need to win to maintain their spot or move up in the rankings, or avoid relegation. Win or you're done. Kinda like... playoffs HMMM.

The idea that there's no difference between being top seed and lowest seed is so wrong too. The greater parity makes it seem like seeding doesn't matter but that's wrong. No team wants game seven away or 3 of the first 5 games in the series away, they want those games at home.

Most leagues have never had any.

And distinction is there from the beginning in a straight league

 

[tsujimoto74]

This. I think given the choice, the NHLPA wouldn't mind cutting the season back to say 70 games ... if they could collect the same salaries that they currently get for 82 games. Obviously, they wouldn't - and so that's the major sticking point for them not pushing some to decrease the number of games played.

The owners? They $ee a $mall number of rea$on$ for having more game$ and $o ... well, I don't know what one of those might be, but maybe we'll figure it out later on.

Why would owners want more regular season games at the expense of playoff games? Playoff ticket sales generate far more revenue.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The games during season do not mean much since so many teams go to the playoffs anyway.

Count your blessings that you weren't around in the 80's then I guess.

 

[one2gamble]

Cutting the season length to 60 games would work....

 

[SotasicA]

If done this way, every single game will be like a playoff game. As in, very important

Except like 95% of games after December. Basically whenever teams that have no realistic chance at the Cup play each other.

Example: It's February. You're 12th in the standings. Tonight you are playing a team that is 22nd. Is this an important game?

 

[Gobben]

They still have playoffs in Europe too. At least in the KHL and SHL. But if you're talking about football/soccer, then yes. Soccer used to have playoffs before as well, but they changed their setup because they realized a straight series without playoffs were better. It just is.

In the beginning there were only cups. Leagues were invented for economical reasons. Teams found that losing in the first round of a cup meant economical ruin.

When Allsvenskan tried a playoff system, the results were predictable. The best team stopped bothering as much. It was busy winning international cups and the playoffs instead. It also became a nadir for interest. People knew that it didn't really matter what happened, as long as a team made it into the playoffs.

A straight series is a superior way of choosing a champion, from a sportswise point of view. But there are economical things to ponder.

Since people want a cup, one thing to do is to copy football more, and have both a series and a cup. In that way one can have a larger cup, where most any team can enter. For example, why not increase it to 32 teams, and let all NHL teams play?

It is also possible to combine straight series with playoffs, and seedings. By doing that, an increased number of teams will have something to play for. Usually that would then be relegation playoffs.

 

[SotasicA]

Also, I hate that a championship could be decided on a mundane game night in November when a team that was supposed to win against a bottom feeder, doesn't. And now their top competitor gains a 2pt edge, and hold onto that for a championship. Yay?

Because that's how European soccer works. Championships are decided on your ability to not lose points against weak teams, even if you beat your closest championship rivals.

I personally don't believe you are the best unless you can beat the 2nd best.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Get rid of the playoffs? Honestly that's the only hockey really worth watching.

 

[Klinton]

Just copy everything Las Vegas does in the Arena

 

[adsfan]

Can we also get relegation? Call sweaters kits too?

Kit actually refers to the entire uniform in soccer/football.

I am definitely against 120 game seasons and relegation in the NHL.

I would take the 3 on 3 OT and add a player on each side after every whistle. Hockey used to have 7 players aside in the old days with the Rover. Maybe you can bring that back for a few minutes every once in awhile?

 

[JHB]

In the beginning there were only cups. Leagues were invented for economical reasons. Teams found that losing in the first round of a cup meant economical ruin.

When Allsvenskan tried a playoff system, the results were predictable. The best team stopped bothering as much. It was busy winning international cups and the playoffs instead. It also became a nadir for interest. People knew that it didn't really matter what happened, as long as a team made it into the playoffs.

A straight series is a superior way of choosing a champion, from a sportswise point of view. But there are economical things to ponder.

Since people want a cup, one thing to do is to copy football more, and have both a series and a cup. In that way one can have a larger cup, where most any team can enter. For example, why not increase it to 32 teams, and let all NHL teams play?

It is also possible to combine straight series with playoffs, and seedings. By doing that, an increased number of teams will have something to play for. Usually that would then be relegation playoffs.

Agreed.

They could have for example:

1. League (60-80 games, no playoffs, most points win)
2. An elimination/straight to playoff cup, involving all 31(32) NHL teams. The winner of the league the previous year plays the the team that ended last place - so that ending up higher up in the league - let's say 5h place, is better than finishing 8th). These could be a series of 3 instead of 7, and be played as a cup either before the league starts or simultaneously with it.
3. If the cup and the league had two different winners, you could have a 1 off game at a third party arena as a "Super Cup", played right before the league starts the next season, to kick things off with a "bang". Winning club could get a bit of money, say $500k or $1m.
4. Potentially, you could add an international cup involving say the best 8 from NHL, best 4 from KHL, best 2 from SHL and 2 from Finland/Switzerland (one each). It could be a 2-3 week tournament with the same setup as the World Cup. Winning team gets money and prestige and you can hype this tournament up internationally to increase interest in all high quality leagues (incl the NHL).

Winning the league would be #1 but winning the other cups would be honorable and important as well. There would be no "not important" games, especially for the competing teams, as all teams would want to win every cup. And even if you're just a "middle team" or even a bottom team, you'd still do your best to get the best chance in next season's elimination cup, or try to reach top 8 so that you could participate in the international tournament.

 

[SladeWilson23]

So we're going to do what baseball did from 1901 to 1968? I'm not against it. I just don't think it's necessary.

 

[JHB]

Also, I hate that a championship could be decided on a mundane game night in November when a team that was supposed to win against a bottom feeder, doesn't. And now their top competitor gains a 2pt edge, and hold onto that for a championship. Yay?

Because that's how European soccer works. Championships are decided on your ability to not lose points against weak teams, even if you beat your closest championship rivals.

I personally don't believe you are the best unless you can beat the 2nd best.

So you're saying that having the luck on your side in two or three games against your closest opponent makes you the better team than one that has delivered a full season long? Having to give your full effort and win every game, even against the weakest opponents is what makes every game so much more interesting. A loss in October can come back to haunt you by the end of it.

 

[aufheben]

It’d be more exciting for me because I’d stop watching the NHL and get out more.

 

[SotasicA]

So you're saying that having the luck on your side in two or three games against your closest opponent makes you the better team than one that has delivered a full season long? Having to give your full effort and win every game, even against the weakest opponents is what makes every game so much more interesting. A loss in October can come back to haunt you by the end of it.

If you lose a best of seven, you aren't the better team. Doesn't matter if you beat Ottawa 5-1 in November, and your opponent didn't.

They are better than you.

 

[SlickShot]

Even better, make it a 162 game schedule like the MLB does.

 

[Jeremy2020]

There are ideas on how to make the league more 'fun' and/or competitive. I can confirm this is an idea that a living breathing person has had..

 

[PsYcNeT]

Just raise the glass 5 or 6 feet to create less stoppages. Pucks out of play kill the flow of the game.

How bout the only pucks "out of play" being ones that end up in the bench.

Place a geodesic dome over the ice surface and make banking pucks off the roof part of the game. That oughta liven things up.

 

[CupsOverCash]

Tampa doesnt disagree....

 

[JoVel]

What a stupid idea. You should feel ashamed.

 

[JHB]

If you lose a best of seven, you aren't the better team. Doesn't matter if you beat Ottawa 5-1 in November, and your opponent didn't.

They are better than you.

Don't agree. You might be in a down period, have a bunch of injuries, have some pucks hitting the post etc. while the other team is in a lucky/good streak. 70-80 games over a full season will more adequately tell you which team is better than playing 4-7 games against each other in a short period of time.

 

[JHB]

Tampa doesnt disagree....

Tampa should win since they deserve to. Let's say they finish 25 points ahead of some other team, and then lose against that team in the finals. That's robbery. Tampa deserved the win.