Today's column from Damien Cox hits the nail on the head - something big is up:
Those who cling to strains of discredited orthodoxy, suggesting that the NHL doesn't need to change one single thing about its game, are now clearly the minority. The voices calling out for a faster, more offensive NHL are becoming deafening. In addition, the NHL faces a strike this fall that most think will kill at least one season and sweep away more than a few teams.All in all, there is a very good chance that what will be played in the NHL in 2005 or 2006 will be a very different game than we see today. That would be a good thing. There are too many clubs, too many games, too few stars and too many grinders. It is now difficult to associate with a sport - even in a market like mine that boasts two top teams within two hours drive - when the games devolve into roller derby tactics along the boards, debates whether eye protection is for sissies and the thrilling spectacle of yet another dump into the corner. For years, I watched at least a full game on the TV once a week, listened to a couple on radio, bought the kids souveniers and caught at least one game live a year. I was a pretty good customer, I would have thought. No more. I'm bored. My remedies?
- Ditch centres. Five a side all game.
- Big ice. Watching NHL after a good soccer game on Fox Sports World (with its 22 players in play on a big field) is like watching dogs brawl in a closet.
- Even smaller goal pads. It is insane how in recent years goalies have started to look like leviathans with shoulders as wide as the crease. Leave something significant to aim the puck at.
- Five games for any fight minimum. I won't put a game on the TV these days for fear the kids will watch it. Not because of checking or hammering a guy into the boards. The fights. I would turn any TV show off that regularly shows grown men battering each others faces with their fists until one falls down. With NHL, I can't be bothered turning it on, if the three and five year old are around.
- Start the season in late October and finish by the end of April.
Comments
Hans - February 10, 2004 10:19 AM
its hockey. I strongly agree with some of your points. there are too many teams and they change their uniforms around too much: why is buffalo black and red these days, wasn't san jose green last year, why do teams have 3 uniforms? i can't tell if its nashville at carolina or pittsburgh at phoenix. the season is way too long: they should start no earlier than canadian thanksgiving and end the regular season on the first day of spring. and finally, enforcing the rules: the players and coaches will sure think twice about fighting and the stupid penalties if you got suspended for 5 games for a fight. or how about maintaining the power play even after a goal is scored. that should cut down on the cheap infractions.
Alan - February 10, 2004 11:24 AM
Thank God for Hans. Someone who can respond in agreement with me. Someone buy him a beer next time you see him. And me one when you see me.
The Middleman - February 10, 2004 12:41 PM
I think it is easier to explain fighting to a youngster than the axe swings or x-checks to the head that have become so graphically prominent in the game.
I think the NHL will become obsolete after the next lockout. I never got over the Expos being locked-out of the World Series, and I will never get over the upcoming lockout.
I have decided to view th NHL as one big training camp for the World Juniors, World Cup, and Olympic tournaments (men and women). With the exception of the first rounds of the playoffs, those are the only competitions where the ethos of pride and emotional investment in your team exist anymore.
Changes in NHL rules are simply rearranging the deck chairs as long as the CBA is not addressed.
Mike - February 10, 2004 2:27 PM
I don't like 4 on 4 as a format for regular play, although I noticed just recently during an X/UNB game that they went to 4 on 4 for the 5 minute overtime period. That was exciting, and could easily be adopted by the NHL.
Not sure how widespread this 4-on-4 overtime scheme is.
(Although my wife suggested they should have a free-for-all and let all the players on the ice for the overtime ... uh, honey...)
Ben - February 11, 2004 1:08 AM
Overtime is 4-on-4 in the NHL and has been for several years.
I think there's a better than good chance that a lockout will be avoided. People are in panic mode way too early. What kind of negotiators would take anything other than a hard line 8 months before the current CBA expires. I would be surprised if either side even has permission to compromise on anything at this point.
In theory a shorter schedule would be great but it would mean a lot of lost revenue. Fighting will never be completely banned because the people that don't watch the game (like Alan when his kids are in the room) because of it are far outnumbered by the people who like it. More importantly, people that like fighting buy tickets. They're also the kind of people that go to games, buy jerseys, banners and $8 beers by the half dozen.
I'm all for making goalie pads smaller, and I'd love to see them treated like all other skaters when they leave their crease.
Bigger ice is doable. It wouldn't mean as many lost dollars as a shorter schedule and it could conceivably result in higher attendance overall in rinks that don't sell out.
No centres? No thanks. Oddly enough I think it would be easier to defend against. Rather than have 2 or 3 potential passes to guard against on a rush there would only be 1 or 2. Shot quality might go up but I think scoring chances would go down. It works for OT (actually, ties are still more common than OT wins so that's debatable) because noboy really practices it.