NHL general managers convened in Boca Raton this week in their annual bid to screw up the coolest game on Earth. They brainstorm and workshop proposed rule changes regarding everything from on-ice play to calculating standings and playoff seeding. Then the media speculate on what changes could be adopted and offer their own ideas. Then the trickle-down continues and you get influential hockey bloggers like myself adding my two cents' worth. My luke-warm takes on some of the ideas floating around NHL rinks:
The Three Point Win: I understand the desire to change the current point system which makes no distinction between a win in regulation or overtime/shootout. Some GMs feel there should be a bigger reward for winning versus losing in overtime. Proponents would award three points for a victory in regulation, two points for a victory in OT/SO, and one point for an OT/SO loss. The thinking goes, teams would play harder, in theory elevating play, during regulation if the payoff for winning in regulation were greater. I think the solution is much simpler. I would eliminate rewarding a team for losing in OT/SO. I was pleased to read this morning that, according to
USA Today legendary championship architect Lou Lamoriello agrees, “I’m not one personally in favor of a three-point game,” he said. “I’m also not in favor of getting a point if you don’t win. I’d rather see the game be two points and zero (points) or end up in a tie for one and one.” Personally, I prefer the old two points for a win, one point for a tie system to what we have now or the possibility of a three point game. Since more games are ending in overtime thanks to 3v3 play I would extend the overtime period to ten minutes. We eliminate the dreadful shootout. Go kiss your sister and take your point. If forced to keep the shootout to ensure there are no ties, then the plan is even simpler. Eliminate the point system and simply count wins and losses like most other big sports. (I say "like most" because I don't follow soccer enough to know all the implications of goal differential.) The main point is neither MLB, the NFL, or the NBA reward a team for losing in extra innings/overtime. It's silly.
Leaving Your Feet To Block Shots: One of the silliest on the list, in my opinion, but a proposal that seems to be picking up steam. The idea, first brought up by Hall of Famer Bob Gainey in 2008, would make it against the rules to slide or lay down to block a shot. Sure, there is a lot of congestion in front of the net. Big deal. I think if a guy is brave/dumb enough to slide into a slapshot we should give him a high-five not a penalty (or change of possession). Doing whatever it takes to keep the puck out of your net is an instinctual part of playing defense.
Eliminating Face-offs: Some suggest eliminating faceoffs except at the beginning of periods and after goals. Why? To generate more offense. The theory is an offense given uncontested possession at the top of the zone would be able to generate a quicker (better) scoring chance from the whistle. I don't think it would increase offense dramatically, though I have read analytics estimates that predict it would. What eliminating faceoffs would do is get rid of one of the more nuanced, least-appreciated aspects of the game. Certain players have lifted winning faceoffs into an art form. They study opponents' tendencies, techniques, and body language. It becomes a subtle game within the game. It may seem tedious to some, but believe me, this isn't like MLB eliminating the intentional walk. This is more akin to dispensing with pickoffs/holding runners on base. Sabremetricians may be able to point to numbers showing faceoffs are not as consequential as we think they are, but I would be sad to see them go. This isn't street hockey.
The Bye Week: Designed to give players a brief reprieve from a grueling schedule, the extended break instead kills any momentum a team has rolling. Teams have combined for a 10-16-4 record in their first games back from the bye. Plus, I see these annoying pictures of my favorite players sunning in Cancun when they should be on the ice. The only photos I need of my favorite players partying are when they are, hopefully, showing off their newly-won Stanley Cup. Want to make the schedule less grueling? Cut ten or twelve games from the schedule and dispose of as many back-to-back games as possible. This keeps players fresher and allows for more practice time.
Making the Goals Wider and/or Taller: A fundamental change to the game that should not even be discussed. Moving on.
4v4 As the Default Mode of Play: See above.
Tweaking the Offsides Instant Replay Rule: Please, hockey gods, yes. I get wanting to use replay to get as many calls correct as possible. However, being able to challenge an offsides call that happened minutes earlier is counterproductive. It seems cheap. It slows the game as linesmen crowd around a tiny tablet trying to determine whether a skate blade was a fraction of an inch beyond the blue line. It saps momentum and probably instills doubt in the linesmen. A better use of resources would be to figure a way (I am not proposing using replay or challenges for this!) for referees to not miss as many obvious penalty calls.)
Continued penalties: Penalized players would serve their entire two or four minute penalty even if the man-up team scores. This used to be the rule until it was changed in the 1950's because Montreal's powerhouses would dominate on the power play. I could be talked into liking this one, but I think a better way to sufficiently penalize a team would be to
Call Icing All the Time. This proposal doesn't allow the shorthanded team a free dump to relieve pressure in the defensive zone. It makes the penalty more of a punishment without changing the integrity of play.
Wild Card Play-in Games: Yes, baseball's wild card games are often incredibly exciting. I'm still smarting from Eduardo Encarnacion's walk-off dispatch of the Orioles last October. Yes, hockey Games 7 are about as good as sports get. Why not recreate that level of excitement for a one game play-in? Because if you are the ninth and tenth best team in the conference, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs, that's why. While we are at it, one change I would like to see is the conferences go back to straight seeding for the playoffs. Best record plays eighth best record and so on, regardless of division or division standings. Teams should be better rewarded for a successful 82 (or hopefully 70) game season.
Most of the changes discussed above are on the table because the NHL is searching for ways to increase offense and scoring which they equate with making the game better. In my opinion, the NHL would be better served to realize it is a relatively niche sport that will not attract millions of new casual fans simply by tweaking the game at the expense of those who already love it. Can it be better? Sure. But bigger goals, fewer faceoffs, and carnival games to end games are not the right way to grow the game.
