Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MMPL

Yet another attempt to "fix" the NHL

Recommended Posts

Great to see.

Fighting has always been my favourite part about hockey, and I hate it when we look like pussies like last year's Boston series. Finally, we have toughness.

It would be very wise to dress Stewart, Henry, et Kosto vs Broons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great to see.

Fighting has always been my favourite part about hockey, and I hate it when we look like pussies like last year's Boston series. Finally, we have toughness.

It would be very wise to dress Stewart, Henry, et Kosto vs Broons.

why not just watch boxing or MMA instead of hockey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why not just watch boxing or MMA instead of hockey?

I do. UFC is next to hockey on Saturday's.

Don't get me wrong, fighting isn't the only part of hockey to me. It's definitely not, I love the strategy, playmaking, goaltending, nervousness, and passion.

Hockey is the greatest sport on the planet, and the NHL is the greatest league ever created.

Edited by MMPL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do. UFC is next to hockey on Saturday's.

Don't get me wrong, fighting isn't the only part of hockey to me. It's definitely not, I love the strategy, playmaking, goaltending, nervousness, and passion.

Hockey is the greatest sport on the planet, and the NHL is the greatest league ever created.

To be honest with you, the Hockey is the greatest sport in the world despite what the NHL has done to it

Edited by markierung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
despite what the NHL has done to it

I think the NHL is at a peak.

It's been some of the most exciting hockey ever these past couple years (and not just because the habs have kicked ass ^_^)

Edited by MMPL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could make it better without these stupid rules they have. 4 simple ways to fix it

1. 3 point wins, no overtime no stupid shootouts.

2. Split the difference on rink size between nhl and olympic size, The players are too big and fast for the smaller rink, this will still allow physical play, corner work, speed and transitions.

3. Get rid of the instigator rule.

4. Shrink the goalie equipment a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. 3 point wins, no overtime no stupid shootouts.

What if the game is tied after 3 periods??

2. Split the difference on rink size between nhl and olympic size, The players are too big and fast for the smaller rink, this will still allow physical play, corner work, speed and transitions.

If I understand correctly, you recommend that we should make the rinks bigger. Not as big as olympic sized rinks, but larger than the present NHL sized rinks? I would agree with you, however, most NHL team just moved into brand new buildings. They are not willing to sacrifice their most expensive seats(200$-300$ each) to make the rink bigger!

3. Get rid of the instigator rule.

Agreed!

4. Shrink the goalie equipment a bit.

Don't you find they've tampered enough with Goalie equipment?! If they keep reducing the size of goalie equipment, it'll becomre dangerous for the goalies! I find goalie equipment to be just right. AS long as they keep an eye on the goalies (make sure they don't get bigger equipment) everything will be fine!

Edited by Habsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the game is tied after 3 periods??

Whoever wins in 4 on 4 gets the 3 points, loser gets none. If the winner is decided in the shootout, winner gets 2, loser gets 1.

If I understand correctly, you recommend that we should make the rinks bigger. Not as big as olympic sized rinks, but larger than the present NHL sized rinks? I would agree with you, however, most NHL team just moved into brand new buildings. They are not willing to sacrifice their most expensive seats(200$-300$ each) to make the rink bigger!

They wouldn't be sacrificing the most expensive seats. They would be sacrificing the cheapest ones.

These two things would really help the game evolve and become way more fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. it's a tie, 1 point each team.

2. I know it's a dream but it's really only one row of seats.

3. That would solve alot.

4. Just a bit, i was looking into chest protecter area, some of those guys look like the Michelin man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. Call the rules. (clutch and grab, holding, etc) Is it better than the "Trap Era?" Yes. Is it as good as the late 80's? Not even within a million miles.

Instigator rule is silly.

Remove fighting from the game - any other sport and people get suspensions.

Remove ALL head shots, including the absolutely classless glove-rubs after the whistle.

Perhaps with a little respect in the game it might be fun to watch again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fighting has always been there, even when it was "fun to watch."

Taking out all fighting, all head shots and all shoving after the whistle would essentially take all the physicality, intimidation and toughness out of hockey. That would totally revolutionize the sport --> the NHL would lose tons of fans and it can't afford that so soon after the lockout, especially considering one of the major changes after the lockout was that they were supposed to have cleaned up the game to make more room for the finesse players. Further banning almost all contact from hockey would pretty much be admitting that they failed - not that they did, the game is fine right now with fighting involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. 3 point wins, no overtime no stupid shootouts.

I agree with the basic idea, but I've been mentionning for a long time that I would like to see the following point system:

Regulation win: 3 points

Overtime or shootout win: 2 points

Overtime or shoortout loss: 1 point

Regulation loss: 0 point

Basically every game is always worth 3 points, no matter what, and you reward the stronger teams that can beat their opponents within the first 60 minutes. You also discourage teams from heading to overtime because they lose at least one point automatically, and you force them to give a bigger effort in the overtime and especially the shootout because they could lose yet another point.

When I look at all the happy, satisfied, and relaxed faces when teams head into a shootout, I'm thinking there is a problem witg the point system.

2. Split the difference on rink size between nhl and olympic size, The players are too big and fast for the smaller rink, this will still allow physical play, corner work, speed and transitions.

I completely agree, however I also agree with Helmethead that owners will never accept that (maybe for new arenas).

4. Shrink the goalie equipment a bit.

Besides to leading a a few more goals, that won't improve the quality of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regulation win: 3 points

Overtime or shootout win: 2 points

Overtime or shoortout loss: 1 point

Regulation loss: 0 point

Basically every game is always worth 3 points, no matter what, and you reward the stronger teams that can beat their opponents within the first 60 minutes. You also discourage teams from heading to overtime because they lose at least one point automatically, and you force them to give a bigger effort in the overtime and especially the shootout because they could lose yet another point.

I think Cerebus has found the perfect point system!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shouldn't this thread be split? I mean, I came to read about Henry, not about point systems.

I'm looking forward to seeing this guy in another game. I wonder if Larraque and him would be good, or horribly bad. There are only so many muscle heads you can use on the ice before you start getting burnt consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5. Call the rules. (clutch and grab, holding, etc) Is it better than the "Trap Era?" Yes. Is it as good as the late 80's? Not even within a million miles.

Enforcing the rules still more won't have a dramatic impact. I'm not sure it's even desirable given the amount of laughable/questionable penalties being called these days; that will only increase.

We'll never go back to the late '80s, because if you watch closely, it wasn't that good. Defensive zone coverage and goaltending technique have improved by leaps and bounds, and is unlikely to regress. Maybe it's just me, but high scoring does not equal good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shrinking goalie equipment only addresses part of the problem. I think they've got it down to a reasonable size after the latest adjustments...the real problem is the size of the goalies...they are a lot bigger.

Average height of top five goalies drafted in 1980: 69.6 inches

Average height of top five goalies drafted in 2008: 74.6 inches

Thats FIVE INCHES in height average difference!!! Not a whole lot of net to shoot at anymore. I don't know why people get so bent out of shape when the idea of increasing the size of the net a little bit gets brought up. It's the logical thing to do. I'm not talking about a dramatic size increase: say two inches taller and two inches wider. A few of those shots that ring off of the post would go in. It'd just even things out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Cerebus has found the perfect point system!

No, no points for a loss. You lose, you get nothing. Thats the point of losing.

I've hated the point for a loss thing since it started. It's screwed better teams out of division titles and playoff spots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, no points for a loss. You lose, you get nothing. Thats the point of losing.

I've hated the point for a loss thing since it started. It's screwed better teams out of division titles and playoff spots.

I don't think so. The better teams win and get more pts than the 1 pt for a loss... no ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think so. The better teams win and get more pts than the 1 pt for a loss... no ??

8th seed for the West for 06-07 went to Calgary when Colorado won more games.

02-03: Colorado wins the division despite Vancouver winning 3 more games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, no points for a loss. You lose, you get nothing. Thats the point of losing.

I've hated the point for a loss thing since it started. It's screwed better teams out of division titles and playoff spots.

I agree in theory, however the owners would never accept the keep the shootout or even the 4-on/4 overtime without at least a bonus point. My system (although I'm sure others have thought of it) offers a compromise while at the same time rewarding, as you mentioned, the better teams who win more games during regulation; there is a big difference between getting three points and just one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree in theory, however the owners would never accept the keep the shootout or even the 4-on/4 overtime without at least a bonus point. My system (although I'm sure others have thought of it) offers a compromise while at the same time rewarding, as you mentioned, the better teams who win more games during regulation; there is a big difference between getting three points and just one...

i like your system cc it makes sense. the way they do it now does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's 1 very very very simple way to improve the overall quality of the game: contract the 6 most useless teams, 3 in each conference (Atlanta, Phoenix, Columbus: crap like that).

6 teams = 138 players. Basically, you get rid of the 138 worse players in the league. Or, if you prefer, improve the 138 bottom players of the 24 remaining teams. That's 5 players per team. That's equivalent to the 3rd pairing and 4th line of every team.

24 teams is the what the league had in 1992-1993, which was probably one of the best overall NHL season in the past 20 years. 4 divisions of 6 teams. Last 2 teams of each division are out of the playoffs.

Why all that? Because talent dilution is the single most destructive thing that has happened to the game. Since the early 90's the European and US talent pool has grown, but not enough to flood the league with the equivalent of 6 entire rosters of high-end talent. League had to wait until the early 2000's before the draft had more than 2-3 good NHL players available from the European talent pool. About the same time (but a little bit later) the US also started to churn out more than the occasional good NHL player. Problem is, while Europe and US were improving their NHL prospects production, Canada was still stuck with Scott Thornton syndrome: focusing their development on huge kids who had all the physical attributes to perform but had shit for brains and mediocre hockey sense. Ensued Terry Ryan, Chad Kilger, Jeff Ware, Richard Jackman, Johnathan Aitken, Dan Focht, Jason Ward, Matt Zultek, Ty Jones and Co.

So now we're stuck with too many teams for the quality of the talent pool available. Of course, some will say that X and Y on the 4th line is good enough for the NHL, but we're talking about raising the bar here. Imagine every team having 4 lines of talented players who can score on you, 3 pairings of defensemen that can shut you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kozed makes an excellent point. The more teams there are the more the talent is watered down. However I dont think thats the sole reason of whats happened with todays NHL compared to 80's etc.

I watched a lot of vintage NHL games this summer and I am pretty sure I have figured it out.

It has absolutely nothing to do with clutching and grabbing. It truely doesnt. Just watch vintage 80's Oilers vs Flames/Jets and Habs series. There was actually lots of clutching and grabbing during that high scoring time period so how can that be the problem? :rolleyes:

The people who say its the size of goalie equipment are kinda onto something but are only half right. Its actually everybodies equipment, stop kidding yourseves. Seriously take alook at Shanahan when he has his jersey off. He's used those shoulder pads for an eternity and there isnt 1 piece of hard plastic on em at all. Nowadays all the positions wear nothing but huge ass hard plastic gear. Elbow pads never used to be solid either. The equipment today looks more like football equipment than hockey.

With all this huge gear on it makes players slower. It cuts down their mobility too. In the 80s if you were to elbow a player in the head your elbow would actually feel it but today there is very slim chance that you would hurt your elbow. Not to mention all the hard plastic does way more damage to the persons head than the older completely soft elbow pads ever did.

Now ther other part of the problem is obstruction and I dont mean what they are calling today. Its ridiculous.

Just look at the Cheezicannes run to the Cup. All they did was have their D accost players and get them on the ice and use them to block the other teams shots. Thats simply not hockey and would have never been allowed in the 80s at all. Its bunk. Now look at the Ducks and Flyers. Barreling at the oppostions goalie at 100 MPH isnt a legitimate hockey strategy either and yet thats how they found thier success. If you tried that crap in the 80s it would be goalie intereference every time.

Players used to be able to stand out front of the other teams net without being mauled and now its totally acceptable for some useless reason. Thats the real obstruction that actually needs to be called and cut down on along with incidental contact. Today players are constantly making contact when the puck is nowhere near them and every time that happens it should be an obstruction penalty.

No, no points for a loss. You lose, you get nothing. Thats the point of losing.

I've hated the point for a loss thing since it started. It's screwed better teams out of division titles and playoff spots.

Thats what makes the NHL a pro league joke. No other sport is dumb enough to award points for loosing. Thats what the shootout is for, so there a definitive winner in every game and a looser. There is no bloody tie so why would you give points for something that doesnt exist. Its brain dead.

Bettman is turning the NHL into the WWE. Soon there will be pyrotechnics from the goal posts whenever there is a goal and strobe lights and a disco ball go on. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's 1 very very very simple way to improve the overall quality of the game: contract the 6 most useless teams, 3 in each conference (Atlanta, Phoenix, Columbus: crap like that).

One season of poor attendance and you're gonna list Columbus as a top city that should lose a team? Ridiculous. How about Carolina, which barely finished in the top half in attendance a year after winning the Cup. How about Florida, which doesn't even have a beat writer covering the team anymore. Just because fans in Columbus are sick of watching a loser doesn't mean it isn't a hockey town. OSU will obviously always be #1, but hockey is big in Columbus and growing every year. Before the Jackets came, there was only one public ice rink in the whole city, and it was built just a few years before the NHL came. Now there are half a dozen and tons of youth and high school teams have popped up with more teams every year.

So please, don't try to lump the City of Columbus with other cities that don't care about hockey.

That being said, the point about the talent being watered down is 100% accurate. That was the problem with expansion, not putting teams in non-hockey cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The people who say its the size of goalie equipment are kinda onto something but are only half right. Its actually everybodies equipment, stop kidding yourseves. Seriously take alook at Shanahan when he has his jersey off. He's used those shoulder pads for an eternity and there isnt 1 piece of hard plastic on em at all. Nowadays all the positions wear nothing but huge ass hard plastic gear. Elbow pads never used to be solid either. The equipment today looks more like football equipment than hockey.

I have old tapes from Rendez-Vous 87. Players all look so skinny, they appear to have way more space to skate...

BUT...

It's not just the size of players that change; it's also their speed. Look at those old games and look how much time players had to get loose pucks and make plays. Now compare that to now and it's almost day and night. Nowadays as soon as you get the puck you've got a player on your ass (often before you get the puck), so players have much less time to make plays then they had in previous times where they could just take their time, skate and create something.

That's why I think talent changes the game so much. The only counter to (legal) checking is superior talent.

One season of poor attendance and you're gonna list Columbus as a top city that should lose a team? Ridiculous. How about Carolina, which barely finished in the top half in attendance a year after winning the Cup. How about Florida, which doesn't even have a beat writer covering the team anymore. Just because fans in Columbus are sick of watching a loser doesn't mean it isn't a hockey town. OSU will obviously always be #1, but hockey is big in Columbus and growing every year. Before the Jackets came, there was only one public ice rink in the whole city, and it was built just a few years before the NHL came. Now there are half a dozen and tons of youth and high school teams have popped up with more teams every year.

So please, don't try to lump the City of Columbus with other cities that don't care about hockey.

That being said, the point about the talent being watered down is 100% accurate. That was the problem with expansion, not putting teams in non-hockey cities.

See Fanny, I knew I could count on you. I was too lazy to list the 6 real teams, but I knew if I threw Columbus in there you would run with the ball.

Thanks for not failing me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×