Just because I'm bored, here's my take on all these ideas:
Spoiler for length
Spoiler!
Fix the standings and kill the loser point - Yes, great idea. Longer overtime, fewer shootouts - I don't see what longer overtime will do. Just get rid of shootouts completely and call it a tie after that. There is nothing wrong with ties. Lose the puck-over-the-glass penalty - Yes, another awesome idea Hybrid icing - I never understood how hybrid icing would work. Even after all those videos that Don Cherry shows during almost every coaches corner now. But sure, I wouldn't be against something that improves player safety. Fix the diving problem - YES YES YES! I would go a step further and say implement heavy fines and suspensions to divers. No more Bettman Cup presentations - Nope, stupid idea. Keep it as it is. Booing Bettman has become a bit of a tradition, let's not mess with that. Make the nets bigger - This idea makes me cringe. I say keep it the same, but I understand the value in small increases in net size. Change the way we determine draft position - I don't mind this, but I'm not sure the solution he presents is the best way of going about things. Redefine late hits - Not sure what this does honestly Keep the instigator rule, but tweak it - Sure... Keep fighting, but eliminate the enforcers - Again, sure... Crossover final - Why? Seems like change just for the sake of change. Continue to enforce the rules against obstruction - No. The last thing we need is phantom calls and 35 minutes of powerplays per game. Get rid of the referee microphones - Sure, but why? Place a moratorium on redesigned logos/jerseys - Yeah, I can see value in that. Go back to home whites - No way! I would say, however, let the home team pick which jersey they want to wear. Like in Soccer. So if they are wearing dark, the away team wears white and vice versa. More home-and-homes - I like the idea. Smaller goalie equipment - Good idea, to a certain extent. Close the salary floor loopholes - Not sure what the point of this is. You sign a contract, you disclose the terms - Again, who cares. I'll get the info no matter what. No more "upper/lower body" injuries -No. I don't want my team's players getting ransacked because of known recurring injuries. Fewer outdoor games - Good idea.
Can't ditch the loser point without getting rid of shootouts altogether. Doing so would equate winning/losing a shootout with winning/losing a hockey game, and that is completely unacceptable. They aren't the same, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Sure you can. Either you win or you lose. Or you win in regulation (3 points), or you win in OT (2), or you win in shootout. (1 point) Either way, you don't get awarded for not ultimately winning the game. Leaving room to allow teams to play it safe to at least get a point is worse than guaranteeing one if they make it to a certain point in the game.
But I would say kill the loser point if it's decided in OT, and make it 10 minutes. (no points for losers in OT makes so much more sense). But just keep it a 3-point decision if it goes to shootout.
This makes no sense as it would up the incentive to bring the game to a shootout even more. Why go for it in OT when you have (likely) a better chance at winning the shootout and no risk of losing all the points?
IF they must keep the shootout in, I think the simpler the better. You get 2 points if you win and none if you lose, in any scenario.
The ONLY way I will even kind of accept a loser poiunt is if they change all games equal 3 points and break down is: Reg/OT win = 3pts SO win = 2 pts and the extra going to the loser.
Agree with everything except making the nets bigger (Just smaller goalie equipment please), their proposed change to the draft (I think it does need a change but I don't like their change), and their take on Diving (less diving is better but I don't like their take on it).
3 pts for regulation win
2 pts for OT win (5 mins)
1 pt for a tie
0 pts for a OT loss.
No shootouts
If I am understanding what you are suggesting, your system is broken. You have a 3 point game for regulation wins but then it becomes a 2 point game if it goes to OT. The whole point of the 3 point system is that then every game ends up being worth the same amount in the standings. You need to have a system that always awards 3 points in a game:
Regulation Win = 3 points
OT Win = 2 points
OT Loss = 1 point
Regulation Loss = 0 points
I think that once you have a 3 point game (which I think is a better idea at this point than just getting rid of the loser point) then it makes more sense to have the shootout instead of regular season OT.
Originally, I was never really a fan of either the OT or the shootout. I never liked the idea of suddenly changing the game to 4v4 hockey and OT hardly ever seems to decide the outcome of the game anymore as teams seem to prefer to try to play for the shootout. Also, the NHL seems to love the shootout as it is exciting to non-hockey people (read as: Americans).
If you go with the 3 point game point system then I would scrap the regular season 4v4 OT and just have regular season games go straight to a 5 player shootout.
Playoff OT needs to stay exactly as it is.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
Actually a well thought out article! I was expecting the sorts of arguments he debunks in his first paragraph.
Only thing I disagree with is that reducing the number of players in OT is as gimmicky as the Shootout. I recognize the shootout is here to stay (highlights on ESPN every night), but 3 on 3 still resembles hockey in some sense. Shootout doesn't.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
Personally I've never liked the loser point... why reward a team for losing? Just give the winner 2 points and let the loser go home to lick their wounds. Keep ROW as the tie-breaker.
Here's how it works: The top draft positions will be awarded based on points earned after playoff elimination. Once a team is officially out of the playoff race, it starts the clock on amassing points toward its draft position. Bad teams still get an advantage (because they're eliminated earlier), but now the emphasis is on winning, not just on riding out the string. It's relatively simple, and it's brilliant.
Love it. Would make Calgary worth watching for the last 10 games of the season over the next 3 years or so!
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
The choose a legend to hand you the Cup is stupid.
"Hey Bobby Hull, fly to Boston tonight on the chance we might win the cup. Oh we lost tonight, sorry, are you busy in a couple days?"
He's the commissioner, he should award the Cup. It's been happening for 100 years. Don't change it. I don't care if you don't like the guy, you should at least respect the position.
Each team in the Finals should nominate one legend to travel with the team for games 4-7, to hand the cup to their Captain should they win. Easy. Better and more moving than hearing Bettman get booed.
Just because something has been happening for 100 years does not mean it can't be improved.
The biggest problem in hockey today is the growing trend of diving. Ever since the Canucks run to the Stanley cup final, diving has gotten worse and worse. Start giving big suspensions (10+ games) to repeat offenders cause they're embarrassing the game.
I think there would be plenty of incentive if there was no point for losers in OT (but still in SO). Especially within division or conference games. You'd stop the opposition from gaining any points by finding a way to end it in OT. 10 minutes would up the incentive a little bit more as well. 5 minutes is too short and even with the current system in place you find teams holding off and playing it close to the vest to make it to SO. In a way it does sweeten the deal to end the game in overtime.
If they were going to go with a legend handing out the Cup thing, I'd prefer if it was one person chosen at the beginning of the season who was being honoured for some milestone or anniversary, who would present the Cup to the winning team, regardless of which team wins it (for example, if they did it next year, they could have Lanny present it in honour of the 25th anniversary of the Flames win). Additionally, it should be someone who is in the Hall of Fame and who has his own name on the Cup.
To me, the problem with having each team choose the person to present the Cup is that each team has a different level of history and some teams would have a hard time choosing just one worthy person, other teams would have a hard time finding even one worthy person.
Who would be appropriate for the Canucks? In 2004, who would the Lightning have chosen? Phil Esposito? The same question comes up with other recent winners: Anaheim, Carolina, Los Angeles.
Also, the point of the presentation is that the League is presenting its champion with its trophy. By having each team choose its own presenter, it makes it more like the team is claiming the trophy rather than the league presenting it.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
1. The non-playoff teams each have an equal chance at any pick in the draft between 1 through 14. Teams would have no incentive to tank.
2. No conferences, no divisions. A straight 1-30 ranking and the top 16 make the playoffs. This protects against uneven conferences and relocation. The schedule would be geographically based as it is now. I think it makes for more interesting playoff matches and any 2 teams can meet in the finals, imagine one day a MTL-TOR or CGY-EDM final!
The Following User Says Thank You to WCW Nitro For This Useful Post:
