Grantland "How to fix the NHL"

[Drake]

Now the fans have there say on how to fix the NHL:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...rs-fix-the-nhl

[_Q_]

And that is why fans should never give their input on anything NHL related.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Drake

Now the fans have there say on how to fix the NHL:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...rs-fix-the-nhl

As much as I dislike the shootout, this isn't bad.

I propose a revised system of 3 pts for a regulation or overtime win, 2 pts for a shootout win, 1 pt for a shootout loss and nothing for losing in overtime or regulation.
— Mike F., Phoenix

[Jason14h]

The NHL always seems to be trying to create rivalries. How about this: the top playoff seeds get to choose their first round playoff opponents from the lower seeds? You'd HAVE to hate the higher seeded team that picked your team right?! And your team has to beat the lower seeded team they picked or it would be such an embarrassment!

I've always thought this is the way it should be. The top seed should get to pick who they face (out of the bottom 4)

If a team is super hot going into the playoffs why should the #1 or #2 seed have to face them if they finished 8th (Think LA last season)

[ken0042]

How about this for a point system:

Regulation or OT win- 2 points
Shootout win- 1 point
Regulation or OT loss- 0 points
SO loss- 1 point

However the first playoff tiebreaker now becomes shootout wins. So each game has a "winner", but each game after OT ends up pretty much a tie in the standings. You also make each game worth the same 2 points, and now you don't have to worry about records being skewed by going to a 3 point system.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by ken0042

How about this for a point system:

Regulation or OT win- 2 points
Shootout win- 1 point
Regulation or OT loss- 0 points
SO loss- 1 point

However the first playoff tiebreaker now becomes shootout wins. So each game has a "winner", but each game after OT ends up pretty much a tie in the standings. You also make each game worth the same 2 points, and now you don't have to worry about records being skewed by going to a 3 point system.

That's genius!

[rayne008]

Originally Posted by ken0042

How about this for a point system:

Regulation or OT win- 2 points
Shootout win- 1 point
Regulation or OT loss- 0 points
SO loss- 1 point

However the first playoff tiebreaker now becomes shootout wins. So each game has a "winner", but each game after OT ends up pretty much a tie in the standings. You also make each game worth the same 2 points, and now you don't have to worry about records being skewed by going to a 3 point system.

The more I think about that, the more I like it. Doesn't F up the standings, as technically its a tie, but gives the fans a feeling of satisfaction of seeing a 'winner crowned' at the end of the game.

[rayne008]

Originally Posted by Locke

Agreed. This will eventually degenerate into having local celebrities hand the cup out and we'll have Justin Bieber handing out the cup if LA win it again.

The Commissioner of the NHL, the League in charge of the Stanley Cup should award it to the winner. Its that simple.

I've always liked the idea of having the Captain of the last years winner present the cup to the new Captain. If a team goes back to back, just have it waiting on the table. If the current champions are once again in the SCF and lose, the losing captain mans up and hands the cup off to the new champion.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by ken0042

How about this for a point system:

Regulation or OT win- 2 points
Shootout win- 1 point
Regulation or OT loss- 0 points
SO loss- 1 point

However the first playoff tiebreaker now becomes shootout wins. So each game has a "winner", but each game after OT ends up pretty much a tie in the standings. You also make each game worth the same 2 points, and now you don't have to worry about records being skewed by going to a 3 point system.

That would make the shootout pretty much meaningless, why should fans watch it? Might as well get rid of the shootout and bring back ties. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[ken0042]

I wouldn't have a problem with just having ties after OT either. I know I have travelled to other cities to watch a game, seen a tie, and didn't feel like I had missed out on anything.

Part of this goes to the apparent demand that casual fans want to see a winner and a loser. Now you have it, and there is just enough of an incentive for teams to compete in the SO.

It also brings the jump into the game that is sometimes missing towards the end of the 3rd, or even in the OT as teams work towards getting to the shootout. I still recall seeing teams pull the goalie in OT towards the end of the season, because they really needed that extra point.

[GirlySports]

Actually one of the more exciting things in sport can be a team (usually a weaker one) desperately holding onto a tie. Soccer and cricket fans know this very well. Why cheapen it with a shootout?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I wouldn't have a problem with just having ties after OT either. I know I have travelled to other cities to watch a game, seen a tie, and didn't feel like I had missed out on anything.

Part of this goes to the apparent demand that casual fans want to see a winner and a loser. Now you have it, and there is just enough of an incentive for teams to compete in the SO.

It also brings the jump into the game that is sometimes missing towards the end of the 3rd, or even in the OT as teams work towards getting to the shootout. I still recall seeing teams pull the goalie in OT towards the end of the season, because they really needed that extra point.

With the current tiebreaker rules, there are scenarios where a team would pull their goalie in OT, because an OT win would help them, but a Shootout win would not.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Fire

That would make the shootout pretty much meaningless, why should fans watch it? Might as well get rid of the shootout and bring back ties. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Originally Posted by ken0042

I wouldn't have a problem with just having ties after OT either. I know I have travelled to other cities to watch a game, seen a tie, and didn't feel like I had missed out on anything.

You guys might not have a problem with getting rid of the shootout but the NHL certainly would. They already understand that the shootout is fun and exciting and it engages new fans that might not yet understand the full game. I highly doubt that the shootout will ever been removed from the game.

Originally Posted by ken0042

It also brings the jump into the game that is sometimes missing towards the end of the 3rd, or even in the OT as teams work towards getting to the shootout. I still recall seeing teams pull the goalie in OT towards the end of the season, because they really needed that extra point.

The problem with the proposed 1 point for a shootout win system is that it is an even bigger disaster to the standings than the loser point. Now instead of games randomly becoming "3 point" games they only become "1 point games". At least the hybrid 3 point games can justify giving both teams 1 point because they played the regulation game to a tie and then giving out the third point because one team eventually wins. The 1 point game system has no logical justification and creates as big of a mess as the current system.

The problem with the current point system isn't that there is overtime or that there is a shootout, the problem is that not all games are valued the same. Some games are 2 points in the standings and some games are 3 points. For the system to be fixed every game should have the same value. Either make every game worth 3 points or 2 points or 1 point.

From an entertainment standpoint, I would rather have a 3 point system with 5 player shootouts and no overtime. The 4v4 overtime is as bad of a gimmick as the shootout and it seems most teams play the 5 minute overtime as a formality to get to the shootout. So why keep going through that formality? The only reason the 4v4 overtime was brought into the NHL is because they wanted to test it out as a possible permanent format for regulation hockey.

Besides, even the shootout haters have to acknowledge how far the shootout trend has spread. I know most of the rec hockey leagues in the city now resolve ties with a shootout (whereas they used to just accept ties before). Its fun, simple and fast.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

With the current tiebreaker rules, there are scenarios where a team would pull their goalie in OT, because an OT win would help them, but a Shootout win would not.

You would only see that happen at the very end of the season when a single point would mathematically eliminate the team from the playoffs. At any other time, it would be a foolish gamble because of NHL rule 84.2:

84.2 Overtime – Regular-season – Extra Attacker - A team shall be allowed to pull its goalkeeper in favor of an additional skater in the overtime period. However, should that team lose the game during the time in which the goalkeeper has been removed, it would forfeit the automatic point gained in the tie at the end of regulation play, except if the goalkeeper has been removed at the call of a delayed penalty against the other team.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Wolven

The problem with the proposed 1 point for a shootout win system is that it is an even bigger disaster to the standings than the loser point. Now instead of games randomly becoming "3 point" games they only become "1 point games". At least the hybrid 3 point games can justify giving both teams 1 point because they played the regulation game to a tie and then giving out the third point because one team eventually wins. The 1 point game system has no logical justification and creates as big of a mess as the current system.

In my scenario every game would be worth 2 points. One to the winner and one to the loser. The only thing the winner would "win" is an additional tie breaker.

In my mind I see a bigger problem with some games being worth 3 points and others being worth 2 points than I do with a winner and loser getting the same points. Really- the game as it was meant to be played ended in a tie. Now they are just jockeying for some standings space.

Don't get me wrong, I was one of the ones who liked the idea of the shootout at first. Then I saw what it did to games that were tied with 7 minutes left in the 3rd; and changed my mind. I would rather see 60 or 65 minutes of exciting hockey than watching 2 teams play it safe for the last 7-12 minutes.

[NBC]

The one point that has irritated me for a while is the Instigator Rule. My sense is that it has not been consistently called for years. Far too often have I seen someone dish out a big hit only to have an opposing team member come over and "seek retribution" for what was a clean hit. Rarely is the instigator rule called on a play like this and from what I can tell, it should be. Having to fight someone after a clean (legal) check is thrown might is silly. I don't remember Scott Stevens or Cam Neely having to fight after every hit they threw.

Am I seeing this incorrectly or is the Instigator penalty not being used for what it was initially designed for?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You would only see that happen at the very end of the season when a single point would mathematically eliminate the team from the playoffs. At any other time, it would be a foolish gamble because of NHL rule 84.2:

Yes, but any scenario for pulling your goalie in OT would be rare.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by ken0042

In my scenario every game would be worth 2 points. One to the winner and one to the loser. The only thing the winner would "win" is an additional tie breaker.

Right, I missed that. So basically the standings would become a dual point system. You have your regular season points from wins and ties and then your secondary point system with "OT-wins" that you would use as a tiebreaker should teams have the same number of regular points.

Originally Posted by ken0042

In my mind I see a bigger problem with some games being worth 3 points and others being worth 2 points than I do with a winner and loser getting the same points. Really- the game as it was meant to be played ended in a tie. Now they are just jockeying for some standings space.

Don't get me wrong, I was one of the ones who liked the idea of the shootout at first. Then I saw what it did to games that were tied with 7 minutes left in the 3rd; and changed my mind. I would rather see 60 or 65 minutes of exciting hockey than watching 2 teams play it safe for the last 7-12 minutes.

I think the 3 point system solves this nicely. Teams that win in regulation get a definite advantage over teams that win in OT. Teams that win in OT have an advantage over teams that lose in OT. And teams that lose in OT have an advantage over teams that lose in regulation.

I think that will properly motivate everyone to win games in regulation above all else and it will keep things simple as you only really have to consult the points to know where your team is in the standings.

Then, if two teams are still tied in points, the tiebreaker can be Head-to-Head season records between the teams or GF/GA instead of "who wins the most in OT".

[ken0042]

I wouldn't be opposed to a 3 point system; where a regulation win is worth 3 points and an OT or SO win is only worth 2. I would even say that having an OT win worth 3 and an OT loss worth zero might be a bigger incentive to go for the win. The NHL has shot down this idea before; which is why I came up with an alternative.

And yes, you would have 4 columns. Win, Loss, SO Win and SO Loss. Right now there are also 4 columns, Win, Loss, OTL, and ROW.