Hockey Night in Canada's Scott Morrison delivers his insights into the world of hockey, on and off the ice.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Comments (36)
Friday, November 30, 2007 | 05:12 PM ET
By Scott Morrison
Hockey Night in Canada's Scott Morrison is in Pebble Beach, Calif., covering the NHL board of governors meetings.
It apparently ain't broke, so the NHL isn't going to fix it.
That, essentially, was the message Friday as the league's board of governors concluded their annual meetings.
"Most people feel that the game is going in the right direction," said Detroit Red Wings governor Jimmy Devellano. "I don't want to use the word satisfied, but there's a good feeling about the game, that the game is being played a little better than prior to the lockout."
In other words, Chicken Little take a deep breath. Scoring may be down, but the sky might not be falling. Not all would agree.
"Scoring is down, but does that make it a bad game necessarily?" continued Devellano. "A lot of people ask that question. I grew up in an era in the 50s and the Original Six when I used to see games that were 2-1, 3-2, 2-2, we had ties, 1-1, and I thought the games were terrific, so I don't know that we need to put as much emphasis on scoring a lot of goals to make the game interesting."
True, but the question then becomes are there enough scoring chances, are there enough interesting games and is the trap, which is very much in vogue and reinvented, suffocating the game?
A cynic might also add, are they not fixing it because they don't have the solution?
"The biggest concern I have is that you can't every year change the style of play," added Devellano. "You can't keep every year, because what happens is you're always saying there's something wrong with your game or your product and I don't think that's healthy."
League looking at trends
That is an assessment that was wide spread amongst the governors, who watched a video presentation of the game today as opposed to several years ago.
“We’re keeping an eye on it, looking at trends, and if things need to be tweaked we want to be on top of it," said commissioner Gary Bettman. "No conclusions reached, but I think we’re continuing to watch the trends. Obviously, we know scoring’s down a little bit and that’s something we’re going to continue to monitor.”
"We looked at the video there is no comparison and I think everybody is comfortable in that regard, but we’re going, as I said, to monitor the trends and if we need to do some tweaking we’ll be in a position to do that ... we need to constantly poke and prod and be vigilant ... but we need not be revolutionary, we need not be impatient. We need to see how it evolves and how it all settles in. But if we need to make tweaks then we shouldn't be afraid to do them if we're convinced that they’re necessary."
Towards that end, the Buffalo Sabres, who have openly expressed concerns about the quality of the games, suggested more research needs to be done into the issues and potential solutions.
“We just talked about what the essence of the game was and whether we should do R and D (research and development) so we can determine what the effect of proposed rule changes would be," said Sabres president Larry Quinn. "If somebody wants to go to a bigger net or a smaller catching glove or anything, we have the desired outcome at the end by researching it before we do it. And I don't know how it was received. It'll be interesting to see what people thought.''
As for the notion of leaving the game alone …
“I'm not sure that was the sentiment," added Quinn. "It was the sentiment of some people. But we didn't propose any rule changes, either. What we said is, goal scoring is going down, we don't think the zone trap is what our fans want to see, and we've got to find a way to get it out of the game without damaging the game. And that requires a lot of research and development in my opinion.
For instance, there's a theory that bigger nets would get rid of the trap and improve goal scoring. Who knows if that's true? I don't. So ideas like that need to be tested thoroughly so that if we decide to do something like that, it has the desired result. You'd hate to do it and not have it work.''
Makes sense.
There was discussion, inevitably, about bigger nets but happily that would only happen as an absolute last resort. As for shrinking goaltender equipment, that was mentioned, too, and the players are willing to go along as long as there is no increased potential for injury. But that is not going to happen soon.
“I believe compared to 20 years ago the goaltenders are three inches taller and 20 pounds bigger," said Bettman. "That’s part of the evolution of the game.”
Buffalo may have found an ally of sorts in Los Angeles Kings general manager Dean Lombardi.
"I think the most important thing they said in there, which I think is accurate, is that maybe we’ve got to spend a little more time on research when we make changes which I’ve always kind of advocated,” he said. “It’s sort of like we did the crease rule and Brett Hull’s toe ends up in it. These are things I think we probably could do a better job in projecting the potential liabilities.”
Less is more
Interestingly, the governors have basically realized that perhaps there is too much tweaking to the game post-lockout.
"Bobby Clarke’s been saying that for years, it’s not so bad and the more you do, it’s self-prophecy, added Lombardi.
“The game is in excellent shape," said Anahiem Ducks general manager Brian Burke. "I think the package of rule changes since the lockout made the game better and showcased the skill. Hitting has come back in the game after some tweaking of the standard. There was some danger of taking that out, but it hasn’t happened.
“People wring their hands about (goal scoring being down), but I don’t think goals sell our game. It’s scoring chances. I’ve said that for years and I’ve built my teams on that in terms of entertainment value. If you go to a game there’s a series of events that entertain you: scoring chances, a fight, a big hit. Our goal is to provide as many of those per period. We don’t need more goals.
“I blame Patrick Roy for all of this because he glamourized the goaltender position. The single biggest difference in any pro sport over the last 50 years is the emergence of the goaltender position in the National Hockey League. They’re superior athletes, better coached, better trained. You watch tape from 20 years ago and some of the goals going in are horrendous, just horrible. You wonder what were they doing? I don’t think we should lament goals being down. We should be committed to entertaining hockey and a big save is an exciting play.”
SKED CHANGES: Now that the NHL has put the old schedule matrix in play for next season, it's expected that inevitably the league will go to 84 games with a shortened pre-season, meaning teams will play every other team at least twice, home and home. It is a concept the players endorse.
“It was my proposal," said Devellano. "Each team in the league would play once home, once away. Couple of problems: not everybody agreed, and that’s fine in a democratic league, and there’s a transition with Paul Kelly coming in and trying to get his feet wet, so it had to be collectively bargained. There was some urgency to make the schedule better now, and the pre-lockout schedule was easy to get through.”
"I realized I couldn’t get two-thirds approval for my proposal now, but having listened to Paul Kelly yesterday, I can see the players are for it. They’d like to go into every rink at least once. It doesn’t appear on the surface that it’ll be a hard sell with the union. The players want it. They’re our performers, our actors and we should listen to them. And the fans want it. Probably after next year we’ll go back with the 84 schedule with a reduction in pre-season from nine to, say, six games."
OTHER STUFF: Four teams opposed the schedule change. Anaheim, New Jersey, New York Islanders and Buffalo were the dissenting votes.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Open. Submit your Comment.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
Post a Comment
Viewpoint »
About the Author
Scott Morrison, the recipient of the Hockey Hall of Fameís 2006 Elmer Ferguson Memorial Award, has been covering hockey for 25 years. The Toronto native began his career at the Toronto Sun in 1979. After spending more than 11 years as a hockey writer and columnist at the paper, Morrison became Sports Editor in 1991 and led the section to being named one of North America's top-ten sports sections in 1999 - the first sports section in Canada to receive the AP Sports Editors North American Award. Scott, a former two-term president of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association, joined Rogers Sportsnet in 2001 as Managing Editor, Hockey, and is currently both a commentator on Hockey Night in Canada and a columnist for CBC.ca.
Recent Posts
- Listen to Grapes - touch icing is dangerous
- Friday, March 21, 2008
- Pronger's suspension not enough, but not far off
- Tuesday, March 18, 2008
- NHL standings should not reward division leaders
- Wednesday, March 12, 2008
- Neck guards, like visors, will be a player’s choice
- Thursday, March 6, 2008
- Sens' problems deeper than Paddock
- Wednesday, February 27, 2008
- Subscribe to Viewpoint
Archives
- March 2008 (4)
- February 2008 (14)
- January 2008 (9)
- December 2007 (8)
- November 2007 (9)
- October 2007 (8)
- September 2007 (5)
- July 2007 (1)
- June 2007 (7)
- May 2007 (8)
- April 2007 (12)
- March 2007 (5)
- February 2007 (5)
- January 2007 (7)
- December 2006 (6)
- November 2006 (8)
- October 2006 (8)
Comments (36)
Matt
Ottawa
Scoring will continue to go down, and players skill will continue to go up, thats just the evolution of the game. Just because Guy Lafleur could score 50 goals with a wrist shot from 60 feet out on a goalie who looked like a 8 year old girl in the net doesnt mean it was a better game 30 years ago. Speed, skill and athletisism is the new game. Corner battles and mucking and grinding for every loose puck is the new game, team defence is the new game. If you dont like it dont watch hockey. There is still alot of entertaining great skilled players in the game that make it very interesting to watch, and the older guys that can adapt to the new game also serve to make it very interesting.
And to Sanj who said watching hockey in June is absurd ..easy solution for you, please stop watching, a true fan of the game would never say that watching any game is absurd.
Posted December 7, 2007 09:42 AM
Duane
toronto
I would like to offer a couple of points that may help scoring, scoring chances and get the flow of the game moving again.
Firstly, I would remove the first row of seats to increase the size of the ice. The size of the player has increased so the ice surface should compensate for that.
I would shorten the stick length to defeat some of the skill defeating techniques these players have developed as well as stop any hooking.
I would shrink the catching glove and the humongous cheater attached to the wrist area. The glove is supposed to catch pucks not block shots.
I would also make it illegal for players to leave there skates to block shots. Goalies are paid to stop the puck. There are probably as many blocked shots as actual shots on net in the game.
Only when the flow of the game is improved and some excitement of the game returns will i watch hockey again.
Posted December 6, 2007 02:06 PM
jake
Winnipeg
Re: Overtime
They have to change the point system in the NHL.
If a team wins outright, they should get 3 pts.
The winning team in overtime should get 2pts., with the loser getting one.
Right now there is no incentive for a grinding team to play for the win in regulation time. Also, there is the danger that 2 teams playing back to back games could agree to split overtime games, with both teams getting 3 pts. as opposed to 2pts. if the split happened in regulation time.
Posted December 2, 2007 01:58 PM
cliff cabana
Gentlemen: Two issues for comment:
first: Nobody talked about the officiating!!!! Its just horrible. I've been following hockey since 1958, and at no time have I seen such poor quality officiating!!! It seems that the more officials there are on the ice, the more the quality decreases. It has now reached the point that this situation is having a direct effect on game results. This situation is also causing much frustration at the coaches level the likes of which we have never seen before. Did the B of D even discuss this issue?? Or perhaps they don't even think it is an issue !!
second: With the evolution of bigger and stronger players in the sport, the degree of effects from dirty hits has intensified to a ridiculous point - change the sport name from ice hockey to goons on ice. I find it almost criminal that people like Brian Burke and Don Cheery continually promote this aspect of the game. And to make things worse, the league is too soft on punishing and discouraging such savage hits as we have seen and will continue to see. (e.g. Bartuzzi, or the hit on Bergeron, to name but two obvious ones). The day will come when one of these incidents may lead to a fatality, and then what?? One must also not forget the potential impact on the impression this leaves on our children, and we have just witnessed another related incident this past week. Don Cherry says there is no relation, and that this was just an isolated case??? We beg to differ, and if he can take some of his highly paid time to go to more of these kids games, he'll see for himself.
In the meantime, I suppose Mr Bettman and his comrades keep counting the cash that comes from their lucrative cow.
Cliff Cabana
Posted December 2, 2007 11:24 AM
douglas
winnipeg
The game has reverted to a dump it in dump it out trap snooze. Why has no one suggested the obvious? Olympic size rinks. All the other "tweaks" will be just that.
Posted December 2, 2007 06:42 AM
Jeff Hendrickson
A beautiful part of Hockey concerns the amount of calories expended to defend against scoring one goal. Of course, on the other hand, many calories are expended to beat the defense and score a goal. Therefore, I believe any efforts to juice up the game in order to achieve higher scores takes away the beauty of a game that is inherently meant to be low scoring. The thing I dread for Hockey is the mind numbing efforts to turn the game into an equivalent of the NBA wanton scoring machines. Hockey purists will see this.
I'm still thinking of the importance of calories expended. Therefore get rid of the shoot out! A well played game that ends in a tie, to me, is just as exciting as a game that has a winner and loser. I think the shoot out takes away from and cheapens the efforts expended by the players during regulation and the ensuing 5 minute overtime. Consequently I think a 10-20 minute sudden death overtime (during the regular season) is sufficent time to determine a winner. If a winner emerges then 2 points for the winner and 1 point for the loser. And if the game finally ends in a tie after overtime maybe 1.5 points could be awarded to each team, a reward respecting the hard work expended by both teams. Hockey purists will see this too.
Lastly, just a thought to be chewed on, get rid of some/many teams in the U.S. (not Canada) and possibly form a conference/divisions in Europe thereby making Hockey truly an international sport--there are enough Hockey cities in Europe that could support a team. Besides playing within their conference/divisions, each European team would make one swing through North America each season and each North American team would make one swing through Europe each season. As I said, just a thought.
Posted December 1, 2007 08:43 PM
Bob Ashwood
I firmly believe that the game of hockey is in dire need of help. The fighting is exalted to much. The recent 8 year old game where the coaches cleared the benches to join the fight is proof that things should change. About one year ago I recieved tickets to a Belleville Bulls game and had the opportunity to take my son(20 at the time). A fight broke out that should have involved two players but it is a sad commentary that the only people on the ice that were not fighting were the referees. My son commented that we went to watch a fight and a hockey game broke out.
The shoot out is a carry over from European soccer and was totally unnecessary. Are we now destined to have games where the fans carry on like some fans that riot if they believe there was a bad call against their team?
This is no longer a game that I watch with the consistancy and excitment that I had. If anyone is listening plese put sport back into hockey!
Posted December 1, 2007 07:26 PM
Steve Smith
One of the worst things that the NHL did in the US was to allow ESPN Classics to show games from the 80's. It shows how bad the game has become. The 80's games were played out in the middle of the ice. when the puck got trapped by two or three players, the ref blew the whistle, face off, and back to the middle of the ice. Today, they kick it along the boards. I love soccer too, but would prefer to watch that sport on grass. We waste 20 minutes watching the puck get kicked around the boards, praying that it will squirt out into the middle so someone who isn't in the scrum on the boards can hopefully get a shot. boring.
changes:
1. Get rid of one ref. I don't get how a guy out in the middle of the ice can call a hook in the corner while the other ref is standing watching the whole thing. If I watched the games to watch the refs make piddly penalty calls, I'll find another sport. Need more follow up on major penalties, use replays. Plus the guy is taking up space.
2. Less games
3. Get fighting back. I don't even like fighting but the reason Gretsky and his generation were good (and healthy) was because Mr. Simenko was sitting at the end of the bench watching over the situation. Half of the players are hurt so much that they can't get traction with fans. How long until Crosby is hurt for a long period of time?
4. Please get HNIC into the US market. Love you guys. Thank God for the NHL package.
5. Call the play the minute they get into trapped in their feet along the boards.
6. Make the crease smaller. Seems logical to me that the more that they have extended the crease, the less scoring done.
Just my thoughts. doesn't seem to be rocket science... Tons of great ideas in the other comments too.
Posted December 1, 2007 07:01 PM
bk
canada
Blame it on Marty (Brodeur), not Roy.
Now, all the young netminders have good glove hands, are 6.2 or 6.3, seem to weigh around a couple hundred pounds, and rarely lose their angles in goal. Plus, the big defensemen in front of them today can all skate and think the game (the age of Dave Richter, Harold Snepsts, even Derian Hatcher, appears to be over).
Anyway, that's why scoring is down - better athletes. Put gretzky in his prime in today's game and he'd be a one-way centerman lucky to score 80 points a year, let alone a one-way centerman scoring 200 points.
Of course, Bobby Orr would still be great :)
Posted December 1, 2007 06:52 PM
Allan Hildebrandt
chilliwack
I have to agree with the comments made by
the hockey general managers.
Far to often it seems changes are made for no real apparent reason. Leave the game alone
and it will develop on its own, that is really what burke was saying about the goaltending position. He is right, you just have to listen and understand some times
just what he is saying.
Posted December 1, 2007 06:45 PM
Ross Hudgins
Enough with the 'bigger nets' already. It's an idea whose time will never come, unless the WHA comes back someday, maybe they'll try it.
There is one change the NHL needs to make: Fewer Teams. This will resolve all current 'problems' with the NHL season:
It would shorten the season, which is way way too long. It would spread the talent pool deeper throughout the Fewer Team league. This would create better, higher level of competition between teams.
Exciting hockey, as much as I hate to agree with Burke on anything, is all about scoring chances. And big plays...huge saves, and yeah, fighting too.
A shorter season would lead to less injuries to the players. It would remove some of the '4th line fillers', the guys with less talent.
I'm also all for Automatic Icing, I use that rule in the video game and it's an easy change to get used to.
But to sum up, fewer teams means better hockey. This simple fact is undeniable. So do it already!
Actually, there is one more change they need to make: Fire Bettman! I don't need to list reasons for that.
Posted December 1, 2007 06:14 PM
Justin
Ontario
GET RID OF THE EXTRA POINT
YOU LOSE IN OVERTIME OR SHOOTOUT 0 POINTS END OF STORY!!
Posted December 1, 2007 05:18 PM
Arnie B
Edmonton
Problems:
1)Too many teams..not enough skilled players to get around..ergo the evolution of the trap..because players these days can't make a 20 foot pass..and if they can//they're called 'playmakers'..good grief...
2)Poor officiating...inconsistent at best..eg 3rd period refs put whistles away so the players can decide the game....what the hell is that? Call the rules...all of them....anybody seen an obstruction call lately?? I didn't think so.
3)Unbalanced scehdule....every record should have an * beside it after we went to an unbalanced schedule....ie Detroit pummels every team in their division...a nice stats padding exercise if there ever was..
4)New CBA..
5)Imbeciles like Burke..'I blame Pat Roy'?? What about Glenn Hall, Terry Sawchuk...great goalies, different eras..blame them too?
6)New equipment for goalies and players...
7)Composite sticks (tied to # 6)...make the NHL like MLB...in the pros...we use wood (and roids..hahaha!)...except now those companies are all broke!
8)Too many games....but since these 'governors' are only interested in generating $$$$...
need I go on?
Posted December 1, 2007 03:21 PM
Lindsay
Calgary
The scheduling changes are just long overdue.
Every team gets to play all other teams at least once. Currently there is 82 games and
30 teams. Easy . Now that restraining and
interference penalties are firmly enforced ,
instead of making a bigger net, make the ice
surface bigger to allow more play and to
maybe nullify "The Trap" strategies. This
should make sense to most articulate hockey
fans. It may not factor in more goals, but
more opportunities. If the scoring opportunities are there, you can still have
an exciting 2-1 game. And finally , if they
are serious about some rule changes , go
to No Touch icing please , and get rid of
instigator rule. Scot , maybe bring this up
at the turn and don't forget to use your
sun screen.
Posted December 1, 2007 03:19 PM
jake
winnipeg
I thought they were going to take out the center line at some point. I'd like to see them do that for a while in the AHL & see what happens. They should also remove the instigator rule. The healthier the star players are, the more exciting the game will be. And get those stinking Leafs off of HNIC and replace them with the Senators. The best Canadian teams should be showcased on Saturday night across Canada, and no one with a straight face is going to say to say that's Toronto. Stop torturing us with mediocre hockey!
Posted December 1, 2007 03:05 PM
Victor
Bettmen the wise man that he thought he was, decided he wanted to develop rivalries that were missing in the NHL. In his wise thinking ($$$$$$) he forgot that the league which provides his most rugged and talented players had never watched the next one. The west get to finally see Sid the Kid (or should I say man now) because the only place we saw him was on Television for his first two years. Bright idea Moron! Edmonton put their tickets up for sale for the Dec 5th game against the Penguins, they were sold out in minutes. What does that tell you? Had he arrived sooner they would have been sold out just as fast. Again we have an american changing the Canadian game. But it is all about the money isn't it? Too bad. Unfortunately I am a true hockey fan and will still watch the game whether its the Prince Albert Raiders or our TWO TIME TELUS CUP NATIONAL CHAMPIONS PRINCE ALBERT MINTOS maybe even mortgage my house and buy one ticket to go watch a game live in Edmonton or Calgary. As we say in my language "Ekosi" meaning That is all I have to say.
Posted December 1, 2007 02:18 PM
Paul L
Toronto
Tonights contest between the Penguins and Leafs presents two perfect trading partners. Thomas Kaberle and Nik Antropov for Jordan Staal, Mark Recchi and Daryl Sydor. The trade allows Pittsburgh to rid themselves of two unwanted vets that would even out salary considerations. The cost of Staal is steep but he is having a bad year and they have other young stars. For the Leafs they give up Antropov who is playing very well and Kaberle who is not having his best year but is still very high in value. Both players have their best years ahead of them. The trade bolsters Pittsburgh for cup runs in the next 4-5 years. For Toronto it assures the team will finish low in the standings and thus aquire a top pick. It also gives them a real good young player in Staal that they could build around. Any thoughts??
Posted December 1, 2007 01:17 PM
Paul McDougall
The NHL is considering every goofy idea to increase scoring (bigger nets, etc.) except for the one thing that really needs to be done (because it will cost money).
European size ice!
Bigger, faster players need bigger ice,duh. Of course, that would mean taking out a couple of rows of platinum seats, so no one is going to do it.
Posted December 1, 2007 12:43 PM
Ron Old Ray Gun
I never thought I would see the day when the 2 line pass would die so, here's a few more pie in the sky ideas; let's axe at least 6 teams and move 2 more, go back to the old conference and division names, and get rid of the "instigator" penalty. Any takers? Also, broadcast "Hockey Night in Canada" in the U.S. There is nothing on Saturday night and Don Cherry would be an instant celebrity. GO BLACKHAWKS!!
Posted December 1, 2007 12:22 PM
Sanj
Scarborough
The last thing we need is more games. Watching the Stanley Cup finals in June is absurd!
Posted December 1, 2007 10:09 AM
Kevin
The league is retarded. All they care about is making changes to the game to maximizes profits. They are trying to sell the sport in places were kids grow up playing baseball and football. They think by having more goals suddenly makes it a better game and suddenly you'll have all those kids who never played hockey to start buying tickets and merchandise. Wrong!
You can make all the rule changes you want you still will not change the product on the ice.
Personally I'm a traditionalists. Leave the game alone. I find a big save is just as exciting as a big goal.
Posted December 1, 2007 09:10 AM
Brent
Garson
Immediate improvement of play.
Get rid of the 5 or 6 teams that don't belong in the league thereby getting rid of the 100 or 150 players who have no business playing in the league. This will leave mostly only the skilled players. This should have happened 15 years ago and you never would have had the rugby games we saw for so long. Skating, passing and scoring have been forsaken for way too long. Size of the player, bigger or smaller, means nothing if he doesn't have the skills. Other than that the game is fine.
Posted December 1, 2007 08:42 AM
Paul Champagne
As a hockey purist being bounced on my father's knee watching Yvan Cornoyer win the Conn Smythe, I wonder if the game will ever truly catch on in the USA. This is simply because they are not the dominating nation like they are with all the other sports that are popular there. I would imagine Canada's win in Salt Lake City deflated much national interest.
That being said. Changing the game any further than the welcome recent changes may drive away the loyal fan base in the US hockey cities and Canada.
I am glad to hear the quote "It ain't broke so don't fix it".
Here here.
Posted December 1, 2007 05:23 AM
Erin Butler
I most agree with here Brian Burke (a name to bring up whenever some twit says Americans don't understand hockey); but there is more to it.
Mistakes create goals. Not just from goalies, but from teams as well. The Selke Trophy is given out to "the best defensive forward"; twenty years ago, there would be ten players or so that everyone knew were in the running for it. Now? You could have three players _per team_ nominated.
I would advise people remembering the supposed glory days of the '80s to watch those games now and note the repeated lapses, breakdowns, and giveaways leading to goals.
And as for the Original Six era, bear in mind that the pool of players to draw from now is world wide, with millions of athletes wanting to reach the NHL. Compare that to 95% of the players from Canada, 5% from the U.S. forty years back.
Posted December 1, 2007 12:59 AM
Jamie Wurm
I have played in many different sports leagues and there has never been one where I have not played every team during regular season. Professional hockey has enough time in the year to make sure all teams know who they are playing against. It should be mandatory to play every team in the league!
Posted December 1, 2007 12:03 AM
Doug Persson
Leave the size of the nets alone and deal with the interference.The rules are in the book.
Its the flow of the game,scoring chances and good team play that create exitement.Changing the size of the nets would also destroy hockey tradition.Good goalkeeping is as fun to watch as good scoring plays.
Posted December 1, 2007 12:01 AM
robert
windsor
shorten the season please.. why the sudden need for 84 games? (is this all about the money) Move to a 70 game season ASAP. Help out the revenue losing franchises by creating demand.
Posted December 1, 2007 12:01 AM
Zach
I think the game is great. Good call to leave it if it ain't broken. Thank you for once, NHL board of governors.
Now if the sports media would just shut up about changing the game and find something else to make news of, that would be even better.
Posted November 30, 2007 10:42 PM
Andrew Perry
If there is one crying need to be addressed it is the officiating. The two referee system, while it does get another pair of eyes on the ice, has had a major unintended consequence. No two of us ever see anything the same, and in the case of NHL officials, the second interpretation of an event has led to inconsistencies, not only game to game as has always been the case, but from end to end in a single game.
I don't blame the referees, they have one of the toughest jobs going, but means must be found to address this problem. One possibility might be to simply have teams of 4 or 5 officials who work and travel together rather than assembling them from assorted parts before each game. A group like this would naturally develop some commonality of view on how a game in all of its aspects should be called.
Among my circle of hockey fans, one of whom is a CHA qualified referee, this is the common thread in their criticisms of the games they see.
NHL GM's, players, owners, officials and executives tend to live in an insular world, talkng largely to one another; the fans who pay the piper are rarely heard save as a distant echo. Canadian hockey fans tend to be a very knowledgeable bunch, we may wear our hearts on our sleeves for our teams but we know the game and the game's past in a way that few others can. The owners can ignore us but they do so at their own peril
Posted November 30, 2007 10:08 PM
G.R. Poloway
The game is ok I agree but two rules changes that took place years ago need to be corrected. In 1998 the goal line and the faceoff circles were moved up 2 feet...need to move them back. This will change the degree of angle shooters and goalies need to adjust for. The premise behind this change in 1998 was flawed and not thought out very weell. Secondly, in the late 1950's a player was allowed to return to the ice after a goal was scored. I would recommend that the players go back to serving the entire 2 minutes no matter how many goals are scored. This could potentially change the game dramatically. At any rate I feel both adjustments would be improvements.
Posted November 30, 2007 10:04 PM
Matthew Gray
Excellent! GREAT!
This 8-games vs division opponents has almost killed us (Habs) as we've played Buffalo 5 time, Toronto 5, Ottawa 3, and Boston 2 or 3. The season has started yet 75% of our games feel like it's the original six again!
Speaking of original 6, while the make the new schedule they should also put an emphasis on the original 6 mathups or inter-canadian matchups. They listend to our ranting for the new schedule, not they just need to go the final bit.
Posted November 30, 2007 09:58 PM
Andrew Wells
I agree,I feel the game has improved with the rule changes since the lockout. I don't think the NHL should worry about lower scoring games, look at european soccer where a score of 1-0 is common, and a 2-1 game is considered high scoring and the fans go nuts. They love it because it has remained consistant. Too many changes to the NHL in a short period of time will only weaken the game. As for the net size, that is a standard that should not be changed. Something that could be considered, but never will because of lost ticket revenues is an increased ice surface size.
Posted November 30, 2007 08:38 PM
senshobo
Once again, Scott's hard work keeps us all on top of the game; it is very much appreciated. The game is going well as it is, and it seems that off-ice is where you can find things needing work. I certainly want the new 84-game schedule: more action, and knowledge that I will see the Stanley Cup finalists play my team, and better exposure to a league that's chock-full of talent. I would agree that the trap is boring, but eventually fans will vote that way (NJD) and prove that excitement is needed. Lastly, I think that referees need better training, and possibly some extra help (digital), with proper checks and balances for it.
Posted November 30, 2007 07:09 PM
Mark Kowalk
Burke is dead on right about the goallies. In the 70s and 80s, most of them stunk! Now virtually every team has a very good to great goalie. The game is more entertaining than pre-lockout although it does seem teams have adjusted, trapping is up and a lot of games are boring again. However, I still see a lot of entertaining, exciting hockey being played. Making the nets bigger for more goals, IS NOT the answer. Personally, I HATE high scoring games. Usually (if not always) it means one or both of the teams are making dumb defensive mistakes, in other words, they are playing POORLY. The ideal game has 3-5 goals. You don't need more for a good game. CHANCES, that is what is important.
Posted November 30, 2007 07:00 PM
Joe
Edmonton
I think the only thing needing change is the schedule, and what they have come up with for next year is not the solution....To sell a sport you must sell the stars, to sell the stars they have to been seen throughout the league in all arenas.
The NHL should have all teams play each other twice (once at home / once away). That would would be 58 games, and play each team in your division 6 times (3 at home / 3 away). That would give you 24 games, so you can keep your 82 game schedule.
I know that the Governors will never vote to accept that and use the cost of travel as an excuse.....too bad though because if everybody got to see stars play, even once it helps the promote the sport and maybe help sell some tickets.
With this new schedule it will be still be up to 2 years before certain cities will see stars play. Here in Edmonton, it took 3 years before we could see Crosby and Malkin play. So the schedule fixes nothing...The best schedule they ever had was when a team played everyone in the league 4 times (2 at home / 2 on the road. I understand that given the number of teams we can't do it...but it was great...
Posted November 30, 2007 06:41 PM
Ray Ronald
Vancouver
Figures that 3 of the teams that voted against the new schedule have the easiest travel schedules of the whole league!
Posted November 30, 2007 06:30 PM