Monday, August 11, 2008

My NHL

I think I've discussed this with Maguire before, but what changes would you make to the NHL to improve the product? Here are some of mine, many of which are copied from other sources, and in no particular order.

1. Make penalized players serve the full time of their penalty, regardless of whether a goal is scored. You would get more goals and less clutching, grabbing, and stickwork because penalties would kill you.

2. Reduce league to 24 teams, and bring back the old conference and division names. Adams (Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo, Carolina), Patrick (NYR, NJD, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, Tampa), Norris (Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, Minnesota, Colorado, St. Louis), and Smythe (Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, San Jose, LA, Anaheim). Out are Florida, Atlanta (or maybe Carolina), Nashville, Phoenix, Columbus and NY Islanders (controversial?).

3. Reduce schedule to about 75 games and start playoffs a month earlier.

4. Eliminate instigator rule but make fighting an automatic game misconduct with no suspension.

5. Change on the fly only. This is something that Scotty Bowman has argued for and I think is a pretty interesting idea. It would keep the game moving. It would change strategy, but I think would make for a better TV product. (This would be experimental under the Swivelhead dynasty).

6. For every dollar that a club spends on new youth hockey arena construction, they get a dollar salary cap allowance. This is something that my brother and I have talked about. More rinks will lead to lower costs for youth hockey, and that will lead to more hockey players and more hockey fans and better TV ratings. If the Rangers or Leafs or Habs spend 5 mil per year on new arena construction, then they can go out and sign that extra guy that they wouldn't be able to sign under the cap. They can afford it. It would be complicated to enforce, but they could figure it out.

I know what Maguire is going to add, but any other ideas?
Posted by at

4 comments:

Mags said...

Not trying to be a jerk and don't have time right now to back up my arguments but I am sorry....I disagree with every single point. I like the idea on the last one but don't see how that is feasible. Toronto would have a 200 million dollar cap....why not just get rid of the cap?

I do like the conept though. Get clubs to invest in growing the sport and incent them for doing it. Just don't think the cap is the answer.

Disagree on all points.

August 11, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Swivelhead said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
August 11, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Ogie Oglethorpe said...

I'm with Maguire on most of these.
1. I think it is too much. I don't think it would have your desired impact on clutching and grabbing. If they keep enforcing the new NHL rules, I like the current system as it is.
2. I am definitely for reducing the number of teams, but that is clearly not that simple. And we can't just wait for the bad ones to die off because of the cap and revenue sharing. Looking back at attendance over the past few years is pretty interesting. Teams like the Capitals and Chicago were in the bottom three just 2-3 years ago. Then they go and get a couple of your stars and win a few games and they are right back to respectability. Though their markets are stronger than the other teams considered, you could see the same thing happen in those other markets. I know I have never watched a Preds game and have only watched Columbus games because I've had Nash on my fantasy team. I could do with out those teams.
3. I know you think the season goes too far into the spring/summer, but I don't think reducing the number of games by 7 gets you much and it means that the record books have to be re-written (not totally opposed to giving up on the "history" of the NHL if it results in a much better product (4 on 4 anyone?...oh just Maguire), but i don't think 7 fewer games does that for you).
4. They never call the instigator penalty anyway. I don't like kicking them out of the game. I like fights.
5. Hate it. Doesn't really work. With TV timeouts, there would be too many stoppages where guys could get breathers anyway. Plus, changing during stoppages allows the best players more time to rest and therefore more time on the ice. I think the NHL should do what they can to get the stars on the ice more often, not less (the previous comment cannot be used against me in relation to my comment on the extended powerplays earlier).
6. I like the concept, but not sure how to pull it off.

August 12, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Swivelhead said...

my replies to Ogie:

1. The only "new" rule that they call is the penalty for delay of game when the puck goes out. They stopped calling everything else. The only downside to this change is if refs don't call penalties.

2. Of course it's not simple, but you agree with the concept.

3. History has already been rewritten. The NHL played 70 game seasons forever, they kept increasing the number of games until it hit 82. If you start the season a week early and reduce 7 games, you can cut off about a month of the season.

4. I think this would be a good compromise to a few of the biggest criticisms in hockey. The purists want the instigator penalty out because it supposedly restricts players from policing themselves. I agree to an extent. The NHL is ridiculed on many levels because it allows fighting. I agree to an extent. This would still allow players to police themselves, and also give the NHL a little more credibility on fighting. It wouldn't reduce the goon on goon violence, because who cares if they get kicked out of the game after fight 1. It might actually result in teams carrying more than 1 or 2 guys that can fight (not necessarily goons).

5. This one's a shot in the dark. Scotty likes it, so I'm willing to experiment.

6. It would be tough to pull off, but I think doable. The cap already requires extensive analysis of presumably audited financial records to confirm hockey revenues for cap adjustments, and they probably pay a big accounting firm big bucks to keep track of these things. Require teams to keep audited financial records for new arena construction, and add it to the accountant's responsibility. The tough part I think will be making rules for eligible projects, but it could be done. I think it would work.

August 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)