What changes would you make to the league?

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Welcome to these forums.

I respectfully but strongly disagree with point #1.  I love the game and want it to grow throughout the world.  Why should fans of  only 16 cities have the opportunity to watch a professional hockey game in person?  Limiting the number of teams, limits interest, limits youth interest and the desire to play.  Hockey is the best sport in the world let's over come the stamp that hockey is a niche sport.   

 

I'd watch a hockey game everyday if it were available.

 

^^^^^^

1000 x this!

 

That elitist "hockey is only for certain cities/states/provinces" attitude that, unfortunately, many still have is downright narrow, and DEFINITELY detrimental to the growth of the game.

 

I am not saying there aren't some bad choice hockey markets out there, but really....napalming half the league? Absolutely a no-go!

 

And with more sources of talent (it's NOT just players from Canada, the U.S., or Russia anymore people!) than ever, more teams means more opportunities for talented players to thrill fans all throughout North America.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

As for my take for changes to the league:

 

1-- Revamp the point system...like many, I do NOT like awarding points for a loss. I don't care if it's OT, the SO, or a bake off, a loss is a loss, is a loss!

NFL, MLB, and the NBA (good lord, I mentioned the NBA...someone report me!   ), do NOT hand out any special for teams losing in OT or extra innings.

Neither should the NHL.  I would even welcome back ties if it means we get rid of the "loser point".

 

 

 

2--I would adopt the AHL's 3 on 3 OT scheme after 5 minutes of play. In fact, I would take it a step further, and do 4 on 4 for 5 minutes in OT, mandatory whistle stoppage at the 5:00 mark, players switch sides, then continue another 5:00 (10 min total OT) at 3 on 3. If still tied THEN go to a shoot out....with the  loser, even in the shoot out, getting NOTHING!

 

 

 

3--Fix the Division names. I am sorry, it may be a minor thing, and maybe I am just making a mountain out of an anthill, but naming a division "Atlantic" when only TWO teams (Boston and Sunrise) actually sit on the Atlantic coast, while the others are hundreds to a thousand miles away from the coast, just makes the NHL sound geographically challenged. Just plain looks and sounds bad....and don't EVEN get me started on "Metro".....

 

 

 

4--Start holding referees accountable for on ice calls.  Maybe use a demerit system of some sort, but I am tired of this "sometimes something is a penalty, sometimes it isn't"...and of course, the ever popular "oh we called X penalties on one team, let's manufacture a reason to even things up and call X penalties later on the other team".

 

Call a penalty a penalty, be consistent, and let's track how refs do this in a real tangible way and have some consequences for refs taking liberties with rule interpretations.

I get refs are people, they can make mistakes, but professional integrity and consistency should NOT be taken lightly.  Mistakes should be the exception...NOT the norm.

 

 

 

5--While I am not a huge fan of stats defining everything as being cut n dry in an emotionally driven sport like hockey, I would make changes so that broadcasts, pre/post game shows, and analysts start using more and more of the advanced stats so that fans of the numbers can delve further into what goes in any given game and to help educate those to go beyond the simple "eye test" that we are all so accustomed to.

 

Again, I am not a huge stat person, but they DO have merit, and more of them, with logical ends (and statisticians genuinely looking to educate others as opposed to being sneering know-it-all snobs), can only help EVERYONE enjoy and understand what goes on in a game much better.

 

 

6--Raise the salary cap to a more reasonable level, so that the wealthy teams can develop, keep, and pay the star players they worked so hard to bring along, while still allowing the less wealthy teams to still stay within competitive reach, even if they have to let a superstar or two walk due to not being able to meet their salary requirements.

 

Right now, I believe the cap is too low, and while that creates financial parity (or does it? That could be a subject for a whole other thread), it basically means that once certain star players reach a certain level of time served in the NHL, their salary requirements demand they be moved along a team that would normally be able to maintain a championship core (and PAY them!) would be forced to see other teams reap the benefits of their work with those players over the last several years.

Just not fair.

[sarsippius]

You know who drew more than Edmonton (#22) and Winnipeg (#27)?

Nashville, Anaheim, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Jose (#11), Tampa Bay (#9), Washington (#5).

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Well yeah, but a bit misleading since Edmonton and Winnipeg both filled the seats at 100% of capacity

[radoran]

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Well yeah, but a bit misleading since Edmonton and Winnipeg both filled the seats at 100% of capacity

Not misleading at all. Edmonton will likely go up when they get a new buildi g. Winnipeg is staying right there.

And that's why I also brought up the Islanders, who will likely sell out Barclays center next season, but won't really see a substantial increase in fans after a 94% swan song in uniondale.

And doesn't at all address tampa outdrawing vancouver and ottawa, neither of whom were at 100%, or washington at 105.8% capacity out drawing every canadian city except Montreal.

The game is actually more popular now. More people are watching and involved. There are fans in arizona who would be devastated to lose the coyotes, believe it or not.

There are many things to fix before losing half the teams or disparaging active, thriving fanbases.

Like calling the actual rulebook, for starters. Put "emphasis" on calling the damn game right.

[jammer2]

  GO BACK TO TIES!!  Never thoughtt I would say this, but I MISS TIES!!  These 3 point games are GARBAGE!!

[ScottM]

I want to throw in my two cents about the contraction idea. While I strongly disagree with the idea of contraction at all, I'll lay that aside and still say that a large scale reduction in the number of teams would be disastrous for the sport. I know no one is talking about the idea of going back to the original six or anything of that nature, but that era will go a long way toward making the point. I can't help but wonder how many outstanding players we might have missed out on because the league was so small back then and there were so few roster spots available. Did you know that until the NHL agreed to expand in 1967 that the Western Hockey League (which was a minor league that had many very strong players thanks to the exclusive nature of the NHL) nearly got television coverage? That shows that too small of a league wouldn't work. The appetite for the sport was bigger than what a small NHL could fill, and the networks nearly looked elsewhere as a result.

 

We're in a far different world in 2015 than the world of 1967. Today, there is a much stronger American hockey system and the top European players mostly play in North America as well -- in other words, the talent pool is far bigger, and a larger league is needed to "cope" with that. Drastically slashing the size of the NHL would be bad for more than the league. It would be bad for the fans who would have less hockey available to them, and would be bad for players who would have fewer opportunities. Would the quality of play of a smaller league be better? By definition, yes, but I couldn't disagree more that the quality of play right now is that bad. I look at this past season's standings and see only six teams that were truly noncompetitive. Some of those teams appear to have fixes in sight, and some of them are in that position simply because of bad management, which is something that can be fixed as well. I think all of us here are interested in what's best for the sport, but cutting the league in half is certainly not the answer.