This Is How To Make The League More Exciting

[FluffyMcAvoy]

Or... for every game... Instead of playing hockey, they can do a full on All-Star competition between the 2 teams. Without the game in the end of course (duhh, boring).

Also, for the All-Star events, they should add ball juggling, talent show, and a cooking/baking competition. Maybe players can also bring pets and do a little doggy-show.

I like it! Will be STH!

 

[pezpunk]

here's what you do. for every 3 minutes that elapses without a goal, the ref tosses an additional puck onto the ice. that'd be some entertaining hockey.

 

[HolyGhost]

Take it back to 21 teams and get rid of the loser point.

 

[Fitzy]

Still a better idea than the '2 goal top bracket' one dude proposed putting in the nets.

 

[SotasicA]

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.

Hockey is a game where two teams play each other to see which one is better. It's not a track race where everyone can record a time, and everyone's performance is directly comparable.

Points are an artificial addition. An attempt to roughly rank teams before the playoffs. Teams that are playing different schedules.

To truly see which side is better, the two teams must meet and play each other until there is a decisive winner. You cannot lose that head-to-head series, and still claim to be the better team because you got 2pts in Dallas after a shootout, in January. That's completely irrelevant. Yes, you were better than Dallas that night. But maybe Dallas isn't even in the playoffs!

It's a different set of skill to be able to consistently beat less talented teams, than it is to beat your top contender. It'd be like in boxing if you beat the champ, but they won't give you the belt because the champ has been previously so good against bad boxers.

 

[Thrasymachus]

The games during season do not mean much since so many teams go to the playoffs anyway. There is no difference between finishing first or finishing last above the playoff cutoff.

They should cut out the playoffs. Every team should play against each other four times (twice at home, twice away) in a combined series (no Western/Eastern Conference) for a total of 120 games. To cut down travel times, you play both home/away games against the team a day or two apart, so that you only have to travel to a team's city once during a season.

Then at the end of the 120 games, you either call the winner or you have a "Stanley Cup" best of 7 series between the top 2 teams only to decide the winner.

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

Wat

 

[qwerty]

Everytime a thread like this comes up, the answer for me is always the same. Break the trap. There’s no worse strategy in hockey that has ruined hockey more than the trap. Whoever invented the trap hates entertainment.

How does the trap exist? Offsides. If the league ever gets rid of transitional offsides, then the excitement level would explode.

 

[Suntouchable13]

Playoffs are the best part of the season, man. There is 0 need to cut them out. It's ridiculous.

 

[InfinityIggy]

This would make me stop following the NHL.

 

[Gobben]

Playoffs are the best part of the season, man. There is 0 need to cut them out. It's ridiculous.

Do you understand that Football has all of that?

And that the teams fight both for the league and for the cup.

 

[MadLuke]

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

Well no, for many team they would be out of chance of finishing top 1 by game 60-70, 80 or 100, making a lot of games completely irrelevant for them.

That why system like that thrive on huge negative consequence for finishing at the bottom like relegation and not too long season, now most game have either a team still in fight for a first place or fighting for survival making the match important.

That system feel like a 50 games max and huge negative consequence for the bottom 2 needed, top 2 having huge benefit and not more than 24 teams.

All playoff games are utter important, making a large part of games seen important, in today nhl few team have a place locked by game 75, look at the east right now, outside tampa, boston, toronto, Isles it is pretty open with just 5 pts of difference between team #5 and out of the playoff Canes at #9.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Or just make every game 3 on 3

Already hate it in OT, anymore I'd turn the TV off. Only 5v5 sport that marginalizes it's competitiveness for a gimmick in overtime. Thank god they don't do it for the playoffs.

Bring back 1 vs 8 and get rid of conferences in the playoffs. Goes for the NBA too.

 

[hellvetet]

(1) Playoffs are fun. People like playoffs. There's a reason no other major sport just calls the regular season champ the champ.

I understand you might be referring to the NA big 4 here but European football has done this in most of its major domestic leagues for ages. It's a superb feeling when your favourite club starts off with a few straight wins and you know every point matters, especially in a 3-1&1-0 point system while the total amount of games hovers around 40. Hockey simply does not provide the similar excitement and willingness to pay for early games. Obviously the playoffs in hockey is a wonderful segment and I would never advocate against them.

I feel that the combination of a long regular season and roughly 50 % of the teams getting through severely influences the early to mid season interest in most hockey markets. The regular season could definitely need more do or die games before March and April.

However, I just love the playoffs too much as is to tinker with the current system even if there may be some "flaws." Let the owners and NHLPA figure out the best compromise and we can enjoy the product to varying degrees.

As long as the playoffs are there...

 

[Eat The Rich]

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

What?

It's never been statistically harder to make the playoffs in the NHL than it is right now. Soon to get harder once Seattle joins.

 

[axecrew]

Just get rid of Pierre McGuire...that alone should make it exciting and bearable to watch again

 

[TheAngryHank]

Fun endgame celebration.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

This idea would make it more boring...

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

Re-introduce the 1-16 playoff seeds, that would add an element of spice to the game.

 

[22Brad Park]

Fire Bettman

 

[Harvey Birdman]

You want to add almost 60 games to an already conflated hard to manage travel schedule and then not expect a best of the standings to compete in a playoffs... Not gonna happen.

 

[Pizza the Hutt]

But soccer teams play like 50 games a season...If they make the post season. (Uefa, Fa, etc)

 

[MadLuke]

But soccer teams play like 50 games a season...If they make the post season. (Uefa, Fa, etc)

This is an important point, if you play too many games a large portion of them will figure team without any chance to win the season and irrelevant, specially without relegation (that make game figuring the worst team really relevant also in the nhl you risk to have only 5-6 team in the race by game 110, making a strange last 40 games)

 

[Gjman2019]

The 3 on 3 is awesome ...Need more of it

A realistic way is to just ditch the shootout and let the 3 on 3 go for 10 minutes.....If nobody scores just give the teams a point each for the tie

Hard to complain about not getting a clear cut winner when you get 10 minutes of 3 on 3.

 

[Oddbob]

By all means, the best way to make things more entertaining is cutting out the most exciting part of the season!

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

I don't see a problem with the excitement of the game.