Should the NHL consider 4 on 4 as the new standard?

[Hackey]

Would honestly feel way to gimmicky for me.

[Krynn]

I think we will see bigger nets before we ever see 4 on 4.
4 on 4 would be very interesting for a full 60min

[edn88]

There are a tonne of things that could happen before NHL goes to 4 on 4. Smaller goalie equipment, making it illegal to leave your feet to shot block.

Part of the problem with the NHL is how watered down the talent pool is. One of the other reason that 3 on 3 is great is because your plugs never see the ice. Only your fastest and best are on the ice. When we see best on best tournaments, the hockey is unbelievable.

[Allos]

How about reducing the size of the roster? Say for each game you can only dress 15 skaters (10 forwards 5 defensemen?) Then teams will be forced to dress their best players, and more mistakes will be made at latter part of the game as players become tired, making difference in skill and strength more obvious?

[Coach]

No to 4 on 4.

Yes to make the ice a bit bigger. Not International. A hybrid.

Absolutely no to no standards. Thats one of the stupidest things about baseball. And there are a lot of stupid things about baseball.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Allos

How about reducing the size of the roster? Say for each game you can only dress 15 skaters (10 forwards 5 defensemen?) Then teams will be forced to dress their best players, and more mistakes will be made at latter part of the game as players become tired, making difference in skill and strength more obvious?

Yeah but then energy conservation would come into play and guys wouldn't play as hard. Injuries would go up too.

Assuming reducing rosters or the # of teams isn't possible, I think we need to look at what can be done within the existing framework.

I think there are a few obvious solutions. Reduce the size of all equipment. Mandate that everything be made slimmer and more form fitting. Shin pads, shoulderpads for all skaters. Mandate that goalie equipment be slimmed as much as possible while still maintaining some level of safety. Consider banning leaving feet to block shots.

Call the game tighter to maintain a focus on skilled players, especially during the playoffs.

Thing is, tournaments like the WJHC and the Olympics still produce really good hockey regardless of the size of the ice surface and with the same general rules as the NHL. And it isn't like they produce superior entertainment for all the same reasons, although national pride and best on best does play a part. It does show us though that the NHL issues aren't strictly a 5v5 problem.

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by MattyC

No to 4 on 4.

Yes to make the ice a bit bigger. Not International. A hybrid.

Absolutely no to no standards. Thats one of the stupidest things about baseball. And there are a lot of stupid things about baseball.

Thanked for the hybrid ice-size argument (although I'm not a big baseball guy either )

I made this argument in some other thread, but I think that even just a little more width out there would make enough of a difference to give fleet skaters and playmakers more creative options. I also think it would go a long way toward reducing inadvertent high speed collisions (perhaps reducing concussions that result).

The game has increased in player speed, size and skill, but the playing surface hasn't adjusted accordingly. In my view, it's a change that's way overdue.

[GirlySports]

They actually should make the rink smaller if they want to increase scoring. Scoring is low in European hockey because it's too far to go anywhere and can't pin teams deep. Dump and chase would become extinct.

A smaller ice surface creates more hits and collisions which can cause turnovers, the side boards are closer and pucks bounce off things.

[TheFlamesVan]

Olympic ice isn't any longer, it's just 15 feet wider.

[Timbo]

Call Vince McMahon he will bite on a 4 vs 4. XNL has a nice ring to it.

EDIT: XHL Doh!

[Fuzz]

Maybe this is silly, but 5 on 5, but only 4 players per team over the blue line. So you would always have one defense and offense outside the zone. Less crowd in front of the net, and opportunities for breakaways from the guy outside the zone.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

200' x 85' is simply just not enough space anymore. International ice is the answer.

I actually liked a suggestion Duhatsyuk made: make it like baseball, no size standards. New rinks can be International size ice if they want.

Outside of the Olympics and World Championships and World junior when its a few stacked team, actual games on International ice are just as boring and more of a plug up the middle and let teams play on the outside trap fest.

So no to 4x4 and a noner to International ice.

Maybe we need to encourage coaches to be more innovative instead of falling back on defensive positions and winning games 2-1 and 3-1 to save their jobs.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

200' x 85' is simply just not enough space anymore. International ice is the answer.

I actually liked a suggestion Duhatsyuk made: make it like baseball, no size standards. New rinks can be International size ice if they want.

NO

International ice size sucks. More space doesn't make a more entertaining game. You can't create more dangerous areas, it just adds more space on the perimeter.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Outside of the Olympics and World Championships and World junior when its a few stacked team, actual games on International ice are just as boring and more of a plug up the middle and let teams play on the outside trap fest.

So no to 4x4 and a noner to International ice.

Maybe we need to encourage coaches to be more innovative instead of falling back on defensive positions and winning games 2-1 and 3-1 to save their jobs.

Getting rid of the loser point would be a start. As long as it's there, coaches will play it safe to ensure a point. Can you imagine if the NFL did this? During a tied game teams would just run out the last 5 minutes to ensure overtime.

NHL is so gimmicky. Just have a simple W-L-T table. If no goal after 10 minutes of 4 on 4 overtime, it's a tie.

[Clever_Iggy]

4 on 4 = likely loss of jobs. No go from the NHLPA.

International ice = loss of premium seating, renos for all/most rinks. No go from the Owners.

Smalller goalie equipment = wake me up when this gets meaningful traction.

Bigger nets = cranky goalies and more scoring but not really more excitement for most existing fans.

Out of the four, bigger nets is the easiest, cheapest and most tolerable for players (sans goalies) and owners. The first two will never ever happen.

[Classic_Sniper]

I think 4 on 4 would be considerably more exciting than 5 on 5 because of how much bigger players are today than in the past and how much faster the game is. Time and space is just too hard to find. But the NHLPA will never go for it because it’ll cut a ton of roster positions and a loss of jobs would never ever be approved.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Timbo

Call Vince McMahon he will bite on a 4 vs 4. XNL has a nice ring to it.

Xtreme Nockey League?

[powderjunkie]

In 1999, there were 28 teams, with average roster size of 22 = 616

Assuming 32 teams soon, 9 F, 6 D, 2 G and 2 press box, we get 608. (of course both numbers are +/- depending on how many scratches a team carries.


This could easily play into CBA negotiations - the league will want a reduction in overall player salaries - an easy way to do that would be to pay 3 fewer players per team . The PA could decide how they value number of jobs vs. avg. salaries.


Personally, I'd love to see 4 on 4. We would still get an occasional 5 on 3, and ends of games would be more exciting as 5 on 4 should warrant more chances than 6 on 5.


How about reducing season length back to 76 games while we're at it?

[カナダ人です]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Reading some threads about the general lack of excitement in the game, wondering how this would go over. Sure, going from 5 on 5 4 vs 4 is a big change but players have become so large and physical that the hockey we see now barely resembles the hockey of yore.

Physical? What league have you been watching? Tell me so I can watch some good hard-nosed hockey again!

I feel the NHL is less physical than I've ever seen it. I'm okay with less fighting, less slashing, etc, but (clean) bodychecks and specially open-ice hits seem to be on their way out. Eric Lindros was born in the wrong era!

[Diemenz]

All professional league hockey is played 5 on 5.

Moving to a 4 on 4 game would not allow players to transition into the NHL game from any other league on earth. 4 on 4 is a bad idea. Increasing the size of the ice is also a bad idea as there is not higher scoring on international ice and way way way less physical games. I play 4 on 4 occasionally and its totally a game of keep away and we aren't that good; I could only imagine what it would be like when a team got a 2 goal lead and decided to never give up the puck.

3 on 3 is exciting because its sudden death, take that away and its boring as sh*t. Prime example is find someone who in the 80's. 90's, 00's or anytime before 3 on 3 thought overtime in the playoffs was boring. People would sit through double, triple, quadruple overtime, 60+ extra minutes and say it was the best game ever yet there was only 1 GOAL scored. Scoring plays a part but it isn't why hockey is exciting, what makes it exciting is that it means something. The fact that teams play 3 on 3 then shootout in the regular season then switch to sudden death in the playoffs is a disgrace. I agree with the poster who said there needs to be ties and no loser point. 5 on 5 overtime 10 minutes. Wins get 3 points, ties get 1, oilers get 0 (sorry keyboard corrects losers to oilers for some reason). Teams will want the big jump of 2 points over a tie and will play for it.