I just want players to be able to score with a shot off the rush.
No screen, no deflection, just still be able to have some net to shoot at and beat a goalie clean.
If it can't be done by making the goalies wear equipment that is more like what was worn before 2003 (Start of the Gigure revolution), then make the nets bigger to compensate for the bigger equipment.
As long as the Oilers are around, that can still happen.
__________________
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity" -Abraham Lincoln
No - the owners want that. We, as hardcore fans, want an exciting game to watch that we enjoy, not pandered to the lowest common denominator.
That's an extremely narrow point of view. More casual fans means more fans in seats and higher television viewership which means more revenue for the league and with the CDN dollar in the dumpster we don't ever want to get back to the days where the Flames cannot retain their own players due to the revenue disparities. A healthy league is best for everyone including hardcore fans as the mid-90's to and early 2000's were terrible times for hardcore Flames fans.
That's an extremely narrow point of view. More casual fans means more fans in seats and higher television viewership which means more revenue for the league and with the CDN dollar in the dumpster we don't ever want to get back to the days where the Flames cannot retain their own players due to the revenue disparities. A healthy league is best for everyone including hardcore fans as the mid-90's to and early 2000's were terrible times for hardcore Flames fans.
Yeah but we don't wanna turn hockey into a gimmicky sport to attract casual fans. For instance, if there was proof that doubling the amount of goals per game would increase fans by 30% by removing offside, I would not be onboard with that. It would fundamentally change hockey.
There is something to be said for soccer hanging onto their traditional rules. Look at their global popularity.
This thread should be a case study in 'fallacy of the excluded middle.' Because, you know, anyone who would like to see measures taken to increase scoring a bit must be a blithering, uneducated fan who wants to radically change the rules in order to see 6-4 games every night.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 06-23-2015 at 02:08 PM.
This thread should be a case study in 'fallacy of the excluded middle.' Because, you know, anyone who would like to see measures taken to increase scoring a bit must be a blithering, uneducated fan who wants to radically change the rules in order to see 6-4 games every night.
Why do you personally want to see an increase in scoring?
Do you yourself believe there to be a lack of goal scoring in the NHL today?
In your opinion, what is the problem with low scoring games, if any?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Yeah but we don't wanna turn hockey into a gimmicky sport to attract casual fans. For instance, if there was proof that doubling the amount of goals per game would increase fans by 30% by removing offside, I would not be onboard with that. It would fundamentally change hockey.
There is something to be said for soccer hanging onto their traditional rules. Look at their global popularity.
A gimmick is 3 on 3 OT. Reducing the size of goaltender equipment and/or slightly increasing the size in next is evolution. Some of you are acting like we want soccer size nets. If the NHL implemented these changes we would still see 2-1 games but we would see what would normally be a post a game turn into an extra goal here and there. The league needs more lead changes because too many teams are content to just lock things down to secure a single point in close games.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
Why do you personally want to see an increase in scoring?
Do you yourself believe there to be a lack of goal scoring in the NHL today?
In your opinion, what is the problem with low scoring games, if any?
As Eric Duhatschek commented the final series illustrated exactly why the league needs to look at making changes. You have two of the most dynamic teams in the league playing cautious, low risk, low scoring hockey. More goals means more lead changes means teams taking more chances leading to more end to end rushes and that's what most fans want to see. With goals scarce and goaltenders so big and skilled teams can simply score a couple of goals and lock things down. There's a difference between good solid defense and teams going into low risk defensive shells. Nobody enjoys the latter yet it's becoming prevalent again.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
A gimmick is 3 on 3 OT. Reducing the size of goaltender equipment and/or slightly increasing the size in next is evolution. Some of you are acting like we want soccer size nets. If the NHL implemented these changes we would still see 2-1 games but we would see what would normally be a post a game turn into an extra goal here and there. The league needs more lead changes because too many teams are content to just lock things down to secure a single point in close games.
As Eric Duhatschek commented the final series illustrated exactly why the league needs to look at making changes. You have two of the most dynamic teams in the league playing cautious, low risk, low scoring hockey. More goals means more lead changes means more end to end rushes and that's what most fans want to see. With goals scarce and goaltenders so big and skilled teams can simply score a couple of goals and lock things down.
I'm not talking about Duhatschek, and I'm not talking about "most fans." I'm interested to hear what YOU think.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I'm not talking about Duhatschek, and I'm not talking about "most fans." I'm interested to hear what YOU think.
I agree with him as per my earlier posts in this thread and feel he's one of the more level headed hockey writers. You know when he's saying it that it's not a knee jerk thing. I thought the finals and 2nd round of the playoffs this year in particular were terrible hockey.
It is. Way too many snoozer 3rd periods. Way too many.
I'm not sure. When goals are hard to come by and a team hunkers down in the 3rd, the other team pours it on trying to equalize. That's exciting hockey. Remember deft, delicate, deadly Johnny?
If there's solid evidence that proves NHL teams are willing to play more defensive hockey in tied games, that's definitely an issue and makes for less entertaining hockey. Not for the sake of having more goals, but having players show more urgency to end the game in 60. I'd be willing to switch over to a 3 point regulation win system if this is proving to be an issue with the game.
It seems obvious to me that during a tie game with less than 10 minutes left, both teams start sitting back and looking to collect at least the loser point. Would be interesting to see the goal stats from that time period vs the rest of the game.
If there's solid evidence that proves NHL teams are willing to play more defensive hockey in tied games, that's definitely an issue and makes for less entertaining hockey. Not for the sake of having more goals, but having players show more urgency to end the game in 60. I'd be willing to switch over to a 3 point regulation win system if this is proving to be an issue with the game.
The NHL should do this to make the end of game more exciting, which should lead to more goals/lead changes that would make the game more appealing. There are lots of games where the 3rd period is the least exciting period since either the team with the lead plays conservative and the opposing team can't get anything exciting going, or the game is tied and the intensity drops since they want to secure a loser point at the least. The former isn't related to the points system, but the latter surely is.
The loser point hurts the individual games since it encourages conservative play in what should be the most exciting phase of regulation.
For me it is less about the total amount of goals scored and more about how goals are scored and being necessary to grow with the times.
Look at goalies in the 90s, the early 00's, and now and it is night and day when it comes to equipment size. Even just going back to 2002 and you see a big difference in the size of equipment.
My preference would be to keep net size the way they are but to crack down on the size of goalie equipment. But if that fails and the union claims goalie safety then you just increase the size of the nets by an inch.
The other thing I want is a 3-2-1 points system. The issue isn't too much with a team with a 1 goal lead in the third, since the other team pushes to tie, but when a regular season game is tied with 10 minutes left in the third. Make regulation wins worth more and you will see teams trying harder with a tie game in the third.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
The other thing to consider from the entertainment aspect of this potential rule change is how it will effect the standings. Would a 3-2-1 point system pull more teams away from each other and therefore reduce the amount of teams fighting for playoff positions? Half the reason last season was so entertaining for Calgary was because of the intense battles between bubble teams and the every game matters mentality.
A gimmick is 3 on 3 OT. Reducing the size of goaltender equipment and/or slightly increasing the size in next is evolution. Some of you are acting like we want soccer size nets. If the NHL implemented these changes we would still see 2-1 games but we would see what would normally be a post a game turn into an extra goal here and there. The league needs more lead changes because too many teams are content to just lock things down to secure a single point in close games.
Why do you personally want to see an increase in scoring?
Do you yourself believe there to be a lack of goal scoring in the NHL today?
In your opinion, what is the problem with low scoring games, if any?
Goals are fun to watch, especially goals scored off the rush. It's exciting and entertaining. I watch hockey to be entertained.
When games are close teams play too conservative. They don't take any chances and hope for a lucky deflection or rebound. I find that boring.
I miss the days of scoring off the rush. Comebacks are also a lot of fun to watch. I found the Finals this year to be tedious hockey, and a disappointment considering it featured two of the most talented teams in the league.
And I'm worried that with goalies continuing to getting bigger and better, the trend towards lower scoring will continue.
I'll turn it back on you:
Are you absolutely content with the NHL today?
Compared to other eras, do you prefer today's game above all?
Do you see any way the NHL game could be improved?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Yeah but we don't wanna turn hockey into a gimmicky sport to attract casual fans. For instance, if there was proof that doubling the amount of goals per game would increase fans by 30% by removing offside, I would not be onboard with that. It would fundamentally change hockey.
There is something to be said for soccer hanging onto their traditional rules. Look at their global popularity.
Ha. Soccer completely reinvented itself with new offside rules and the 3 point wins. Revolutionized the game.
